UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA   SAN  DIEG 


IIIMIIIIIIIIWIIIIIIIIIIIIHIHHMHHIIIHIUmilHHWmilll 


1822  02751  8885 


iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii] 

X30KI 


A  Tredlim  on  the  Status  of  Worn* 
the  Origin  and  Growth  of 
tim  I'wniltf  and  the  $t#lc 

PHILIP  RAPPAPOI 


llliltllilllllllllHIUIIIIIIIIIIIillllHIllllllllHlllillllllllllllllllllllillltllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllilllllll 


LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF 
CALIFORNIA 

SAN  DIEGO 


3F  CALIFORNIA,  SAN  DIEGO 


31822027518885 


. , 


Social  Sciences  &  Humanities  Library 

University  of  California,  San  Diego 
Please  Note:  This  item  is  subject  to  recall. 

Date  Due 


FEB  1  0  23GO 


Cl  39  (5/97) 


UCSD  Lib. 


Looking  Forward 


A  Treatise  on  the  Status  of  Woman 

and 

The  Origin  and  Growth  of  the  Family  and 
the  State 


BY 

PHILIP  RAPPAPORT 


History  without  political  science  has  no  fruit : 
Political  science  without  history  has  no  root. 

—Sir  John  Richard  Seetey 


m 


CHICAGO 

CHARLES  H.  KERR  &  COMPANY 
1906 


COPYRIGHT,  1906 
BY  PHILIP  BAPPAPOBT 


UBMBBZIMIHNI 


FOREWORD. 

This  book  is  written  from  the  standpoint  of  historic 
materialism.  The  theory  of  historic  materialism  is  young 
and,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  no  economist,  sociologist  or 
historian,  using  the  English  language,  has  made  any  ser- 
ious attempt  toward  its  application  in  his  investigations. 
What  has  been  written  upon  the  subjects  treated  in  this 
book  with  reference  to  that  theory  is  scattered  in  scien- 
tific and  philosophical  books  and  periodicals,  mostly 
known  only  to  men  of  learning,  and  I  know  of  no  book 
in  the  English  language  investigating  those  subjects  on 
the  basis  of  historic  materialism  popularly  enough,  so  as 
to  be  adapted  to  the  needs  of  the  general  public. 

Carlyle  would  never  have  called  political  economy  the 
dismal  science,  if  it  had  had  advanced  already  to  the 
study  of  the  evolution  of  economics,  of  the  lines  on  which 
it  proceeded  and  does  proceed  from  the  beginning  of 
human  society  up  to  our  own  time,  and  the  connection 
between  the  economic  structure  of  society  and  social  and 
political  institutions.  Instead  of  that,  political  econo- 
mists considered  the  continued  existence  of  the  present 
economic  system  with,  perhaps,  some  slight  modifica- 
tions, a  matter  per  se  and  studied  only  the  inter-relations 
of  causes  and  effects  within  the  system.  Thus,  political 
economy  degenerated  into  a  mere  science  of  trade,  able 
to  serve  only  the  working  out  of  rules  and  systems  of 
private  economy  for  individual  use. 

That  was  a  dismal  science,  indeed.  It  was  unable  to 
kindle  a  ray  of  hope,  to  warm  a  single  soul.  A  political 
economy  which  was  unable  to  develop  a  higher  ideal  than 
buying  cheap  and  selling  dear  could  not  possibly  awaken 
response  or  enthusiasm  in  any  human  heart,  and  could 
produce  nothing  but  mute  resignation  among  the  suffer- 
ing masses  and  utter  disregard  of  their  woes  among 


4  FOREWORD 

those  whom  the  chances  of  fate  had  placed  on  the  sunny 
side  of  life. 

To-day  we  know  better.  Although  political  economy 
as  officially  taught  at  colleges  and  universities  is  still  im- 
pregnated with  the  same  spirit  of  hopelessness,  yet  those 
who  are  free  to  speak  teach  us  that  economic  systems 
share  the  fate  of  everything  on  earth.  They  come  and 
go ;  they  live  and  die.  Some  day  in  the  future  there  will 
hardly  be  a  remnant  left  of  our  economic  institutions. 
Wdth  the  knowledge  of  the  past  the  human  mind  busies 
itself  with  the  creation  of  goals  to  strife  for,  of  ideals 
to  fight  for.  What  matters  it  whether  the  goal  will  be 
realized  exactly  as  it  had  been  contrived  by  thought  and 
longing?  What  matters  it  whether  the  social  edifice  of 
the  future  will  correspond  exactly  to  the  ideal  created 
by  reasoning  intellect  and  lofty  imagination?  There  is 
hope,  there  is  expectation,  there  is  life,  there  is  enthusi- 
asm, there  is  struggle  and  there  is  the  certainty  of  a 
better  future. 

It  is  the  object  of  this  book  to  enable  the  reader  to 
form  his  own  judgment  of  future  possibilities  and  proba- 
bilities from  historical  knowledge.  I  will  attempt  to 
show  that  what  is  has  come  to  be,  not  because  it  was 
willed  by  man,  but  as  the  necessary  and  logical  sequence 
of  what  was,  and  that  the  future  will  be  the  result  of  the 
same  process  of  evolution.  The  parts  which  man  plays 
in  this  process  and  his  activities  are  not  capricious  and 
self-willed,  but  spring  with  necessity  from  motives  which 
result  from  conditions. 

I  have  some  hope  that  a  better  knowledge  of  this 
truth  will  serve  to  remove  many  prejudices  and  be  pro- 
ductive of  more  patience  with  and  tolerance  of  the  opin- 
ions of  others. 

THE  AUTHOR. 


Tis  a  foe  invisible 
The  which  I  fear  — a  fearful  enemy, 

Which  in  the  human  heart  opposes  me, 
By  its  coward  fear  alone  made  fearful  to  me. 

Not  that,  which  full  of  life,  instinct  with  power, 
Makes  known  its  present  being;  that  is  not 

The  true,  the  perilously  formidable. 
Oh  no !  it  is  the  common,  the  quite  common, 

The  thing  of  an  eternal  yesterday. 
What  ever  was,  and  evermore  returns, 
Sterling  to-morrow,  for  to-day  't  was  sterling! 
For  of  the  wholly  common  is  man  made, 

And  custom  is  his  nurse.    Woe  then  to  them 
Who  lay  irreverent  hands  upon  his  old 

House  furniture,  the  dear  inheritance 
From  his  forefathers !    For  time  consecrates ; 

And  what  is  gray  with  age  becomes  religious. 
Be  in  possession,  and  thou  hast  the  right, 

And  sacred  will  the  many  guard  it  for  thee. 

,  "The  Death  of  Wallenstein.") 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER.  PACK. 

I  INTRODUCTION  * 7 

II  THE  STATUS  OF  WOMAN 48 

III  THE  FAMILY  91 

IV  DIVORCE  114 

V  PROSTITUTION  136 

VI  THE  STATE 146 

VII  THE  MODERN  ECONOMIC  SYSTEM 186 

VIII  CONCLUSION  .209 


LOOKING  FORWARD 


INTRODUCTION. 

The  State  and  the  family  are  social  institutions,  and 
as  such,  of  course,  have  their  history.  Likewise,  the 
status  of  woman  in  society  has  its  history.  Having  a 
history,  in  this  instance  means  to  have  been  different  at 
different  times,  to  have  undergone  changes.  Neither 
the  social  status  of  woman,  nor  the  family,  nor  the  form 
of  social  organization  have  always  been  what  they  are 
now.  We  have  what  we  call  the  woman  movement  for 
the  betterment  of  the  condition  of  women,  socially, 
economically  and  politically.  The  numerous  divorces, 
of  which  we  hear  so  frequent  complaints,  prove  at  least 
one  thing,  namely,  that  the  family  itself  offers  no  guar- 
anty of  happiness;  and  the  many  cases  of  abandonment, 
infidelity  and  cruel  treatment  show  that  the  family,  as 
an  institution,  leaves  room  for  improvement.  The  ex- 
istence of  what  is  generally  called  the  social  evil  is  also 
partly  evidence  of  the  imperfection  of  the  family.  The 
imperfections  of  our  government  are  so  frequently  men- 
tioned in  speeches  and  newspapers  that  their  existence 
needs  no  proof. 

The  status  of  woman  and  the  imperfections  of  our 
family  life,  as  well  as  our  political  life,  offer  problems 
for  solution.  For  the  purpose  of  understanding  prob- 
lems and  finding  means  to  solve  them,  it  is  necessary  to 

7 


8  LOOKING  FORWARD 

know  the  history  and  the  course  of  development  of  the 
status  or  the  institutions  which  present  the  problem,  un- 
less we  are  sure  that  in  the  history  and  in  the  evolution 
of  society  no  other  forces  prevail  but  mere  chance  or 
the  casual  caprice  of  man.  If,  on  the  contrary,  we  are 
of  the  opinion  that  evolution  is  governed  by  certain  prin- 
ciples, or  certain  influences,  be  they  of  a  natural  or  so- 
cial character,  it  is  clear  that  no  presumptions  as  to  the 
future  can  be  correct,  which  are  not  based  upon  the 
knowledge  of  those  principles  or  influences.  If  we  do 
not  know  them,  we  must  try  to  find  them.  Whatever  men 
do,  we  cannot  but  believe  that  in  their  actions  they  are 
guided  by  some  reasons  and  that  these  reasons  are  in 
some  way  related  to  the  conditions  surrounding  them. 
We  must  know  how  the  State  and  the  family  came  to 
be  what  they  are,  and  how  the  status  of  woman  came 
to  be  what  it  is,  if  we  want  to  avoid  error  in  our  con- 
clusions as  to  the  possibility  and  the  direction  of  changes 
in  the  future.  Religious  orthodoxy  may  believe  that 
everything  is  the  effect  of  God's  will,  but  science  and 
philosophy  cannot  rest  at  that,  or  they  must  go  out  of 
business.  For,  there  is  surely  no  reason  whatsoever, 
why,  if  everything  in  the  past  went  according  to  God's 
will,  it  should  not  do  so  in  the  future.  And  if  so,  of 
what  use  can  it  be  to  trouble  ourselves  with  social  prob- 
lems? 

Wle  have  societies  for  this  reform  and  that  reform, 
societies  composed  of  men,  and  such  composed  of 
women,  they  publish  programs  and  pass  resolutions,  but 
they  all  seem  to  act  under  the  belief  that  social  institu- 
tions can  be  reformed  or  altered  at  the  will  of  well- 
meaning  reformers  without  regard  to  their  history  and 
the  course  of  their  development.  The  historical  sense 


INTRODUCTION  9 

is  not  well  developed  in  Americans;  probably  because 
the  country  is  young  and  has  not  much  of  a  history, 
compared  with  the  older  countries  of  the  world.  Al- 
though there  is  hardly  a  subject  more  adapted  to  broaden 
the  mind,  than  history,  yet  our  public  schools  confine 
themselves  mostly  to  national  history  and  impart  only 
very  meagre  instruction,  if  any  at  all,  in  the  history  of 
the  world. 

Yet,  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  the  history  of 
the  old  world  is,  to  some  extent,  also  the  history  of 
our  own  country,  that  the  first  white  settlers  on  this 
continent  were  not  a  newly  created  race,  but 
brought  the  views,  the  customs  and  the  usages  of  the 
old  world  with  them,  that  civilized  life  on  this  continent 
was  only  a  continuation  of  the  life  upon  the  other  hemi- 
sphere, and  that  civilization  did  not  commence  from  a 
new  starting-point. 

But  even  the  history  of  our  own  country  is  taught 
without  spirit  and  philosophy,  the  spirit  of  patriotism, 
perhaps,  excepted.  But  this  spirit  alone,  unaccompanied 
by  other  thoughts  and  sentiments,  is  more  apt  to  drown 
intellectual  understanding  than  to  impart  it.  History 
is  taught  as  if  it  were  nothing  but  a  chronology  of 
events,  springing  from  the  heroism  or  the  wisdom  of 
certain  individuals.  Sociologists  and  modern  historians, 
however,  take  a  different  view,  and  search  for  the  forces 
behind  the  human  will.  "We  shall  thus  be  led,"  says 
Buckle  in  his  history  of  the  civilization  of  England,  "to 
one  vast  question,  which  indeed  lies  at  the  root  of  the 
whole  subject,  and  is  simply  this :  Are  the  actions  of 
men,  and  therefore  of  societies,  governed  by  fixed  laws, 
or  are  they  the  result  either  of  chance  or  of  supernatural 
interference?"  "Fortunately,"  he  also  says,  " the 


10  LOOKING  FORWARD 

believer  in  the  posibility  of  a  science  of  history  is  not 
called  upon  to  hold  either  the  doctrine  of  predestined 
events,  or  that  of  freedom  of  the  will ;  and  the  only  posi- 
tions which I  shall  expect  him  to  concede  are  the 

following:  That  when  we  perform  an  action,  we  per- 
form it  in  consequence  of  some  motive  or  motives ;  that 
those  motives  are  the  results  of  some  antecedents,  and 
that,  therefore,  if  we  were  acquainted  with  all  the  laws 
of  their  movements,  we  could  with  unerring  certainty 
predict  the  whole  of  their  immediate  results.  This,  un- 
less I  am  greatly  mistaken,  is  the  view  which  must  be 
held  by  every  man  whose  mind  is  unbiased  by  system 
and  who  forms  his  opinions  according  to  the  evidence 
actually  before  him.  If,  for  example,  I  am  intimately 
acquainted  with  the  character  of  any  person,  I  can  fre- 
quently tell  how  he  will  act  under  some  given  circum- 
stances. Should  I  fail  in  this  prediction,  I  must  ascribe 
my  error  not  to  the  arbitrary  and  capricious  freedom  of 
his  will,  nor  to  any  supernatural  prearrangement,  for  of 
neither  of  these  things  have  we  the  slightest  proof,  but 
I  must  be  content  to  suppose  either  that  I  had  been  mis- 
informed as  to  some  of  the  circumstances  in  which  he 
was  placed,  or  else  that  I  had  not  sufficiently  studied 
the  ordinary  operations  of  his  mind.  If,  however,  I 
were  capable  of  correct  reasoning,  and  if,  at  the  same 
time,  I  had  a  complete  knowledge  both  of  his  disposi- 
tion and  of  all  the  events  by  which  he  was  surrounded, 
I  should  be  able  to  foresee  the  line  of  conduct  which, 
in  consequence  _of  those  events,  he  would  adopt." 

Entering  then  into  the  problem  of  ascertaining  the 
method  of  discovering  the  laws  upon  which  human  ac- 
tion is  based,  Buckle  concludes  that  their  existence  is 
proven  by  the  regularity  of  recurrence,  and  then  turns 


INTRODUCTION  11 

to  statistics  to  prove  the  regularity.  He  then  proceeds 
to  say  in  reference  to  what  those  laws  are :  "If  we  in- 
quire what  those  physical  agents  are  by  which  the  human 
race  is  most  powerfully  influenced,  we  shall  find  that 
they  may  be  classed  under  four  heads,  namely  climate, 
food,  soil  and  the  general  aspects  of  nature;  by  which 
last  I  mean  those  appearances  which,  though  presented 
chiefly  to  the  sight,  have,  through  the  medium  of  that 
or  other  senses,  directed  the  association  of  ideas,  and 
hence  in  different  countries  have  given  rise  to  different 
habits  of  national  thought." 

Here  we  have  the  first  scientific  attempt  to  write 
history  on  the  theory  of  materialism,  that  is  upon  the 
theory  that  the  ideas  are  not  the  original  motive  power 
in  history,  but  that  thoughts  and  ideas  are  themselves 
an  effect  and  not  a  primitive  cause.  According  to 
Buckle  they  are  the  product  of  natural  surroundings; 
it  is  nature  and  natural  characteristics  which  influence 
thought  and  mould  the  action  of  man.  Btockle  writes 
history  on  the  theory  that  the  human  mind  is  not  the 
free  agency  which  it  was  thought  to  be  before,  but  that 
it  is  directed  by  external  forces.  So  far  the  most 
modern  sociologists  agree  with  him,  but  as  to  what 
these  forces  are,  they  do  not  agree  with  him.  For, 
while  it  would  be  quite  possible  to  explain  upon  this 
theory  the  differences  between  the  characteristics,  cus- 
toms and  institutions  of  different  countries,  the  theory 
must  prove  insufficient  for  the  explanation  of  the 
changes  in  one  and  the  same  country,  where  natural  sur- 
roundings always  remain  the  same.  The  theory  of 
modern  historic  materialism  is,  that  the  mode  and  man- 
ner of  providing  the  means  of  subsistence,  food,  shelter, 
clothing  and  so  forth,  in  other  words,  that  the  mode  of 


13  LOOKING  FORWARD 

production  is  the  directive  force  in  the  history  of  man, 
the  most  powerful  force  in  creating  and  shaping  socidl 
institutions.  Great  as  the  influence  ^f  nature  is  on 
primitive  man,  yet  in  the  course  of  civilization,  social 
influence  gradually  grew  to  greater  weight  and  import- 
ance, and  man  is  much  more  actuated  by  motives  of  so- 
ciety than  of  nature.  At  the  aame  time,  subsistence  al- 
ways remained  a  matter  of  prime  necessity.  But  the 
manner  of  providing  subsistence  changed,  and  the  eco- 
nomic structure  of  society  became  the  substructure  upon 
which  all  human  institutions,  moral  or  physical,  were 
built.  All  mora!,  political  or  social  questions  resolve 
themselves  in  the  end  into  economic  questions. 

It  is  frequently  said  in  opposition  to  this  theory  that 
it  denies  the  force  of  moral  ideas,  but  this  is  not  true. 
The  power  and  influence  of  moral  ideas,  after  they  have 
sprung  into  existence,  is  not  denied  at  all,  but  the  theory 
changes  the  relative  position  of  conditions  and  ideas  as 
to  their  being  primarily  cause  and  effect.  It  maintains 
that,  in  the  order  of  things,  concrete  matter  existed  prior 
to  the  abstract  idea,  and  that,  notwithstanding  the  force 
of  moral  ideas,  there  is  a  force  of  economic  development 
in  society  working  independent  of  moral  ideas,  and 
creating  conditions,  the  influence  of  which  is  strong 
enough  to  alter,  create  and  destroy  moral  ideas. 

The  abstract  idea  of  good  and  bad  could  never  have 
appeared  without  the  previous  existence  of  concrete 
facts  or  conditions,  creating  pain  or  pleasure,  and  the 
conception  of  right  and  wrong  must  necessarily  depend 
on  what  these  facts  and  conditions  are. 

If  one  were  to  write  a  history  of  the  origin  and 
development  of  moral  ideas,  he  would,  probably,  find 
comparative  philology  of  great  assistance  to  him.  He 


INTRODUCTION  3  3 

•would,  perhaps,  be  struck  in  the  outset  with  some  sur- 
prise at  the  fact  that  so  many  languages  have  one  and 
the  same  word  for  expressing  the  abstract  idea  of  good 
and  designating  concrete  things.  So  in  English:  good 
and  goods,  in  German:  gut,  das  Gut,  die  Gueter,  in  La- 
tin :  bonus,  bonum,  bona,  in  Greek :  agathos,  to  agathon, 
to  agatha. 

In  an  article  on  this  subject  in  "Die  Neue  Zeit,"  the 
French  writer,  Paul  Lafargue,  points  to  the  Greek  word 
nomos,  meaning  law.  Josephus  expresses  astonishment 
that  the  word  has  never  been  used  in  that  sense  in  the 
Homeric  poems.  In  those  times  it  meant  pasture,  later 
on  it  had  the  meaning  of  domicile,  and  still  later  of  cus- 
tom and  law,  denoting  in  its  evolution  different  stages  of 
civilization  and  economic  development. 

It  may  contribute  toward  a  better  understanding  of  the 
idea  of  historic  materialism,  if  I  demonstrate  it  by  some 
illustrations.  Among  the  ancient  Hebrews  the  taking  of  in- 
terest was  immoral,  the  Pentateuch  forbade  it.  To-day  the 
taking  of  interest  is  so  little  averse  to  our  moral  senti- 
ment, that  courts  allow  interest  on  every  debt  after  a 
reasonable  time,  although  no  interest  is  contracted  for. 
Orthodoxy  considers  the  Pentateuch  as  a  divinely  in- 
spired book.  How  is  it  then  that  our  moral  sense  does 
not  object  to  what  the  Pentateuch  declares  to  be  im- 
moral? When  the  Mosaic  law  was  given,  there  was 
neither  industrialism,  nor  commercialism,  nor  capitalism. 
The  system  of  wages  and  profit  was  unknown  and  money 
or  things  were  borrowed  only  in  cases  of  actual  need 
and  for  purposes  of  consumption.  To-day,  most  loans 
are  business-loans,  and  in  business  money  is  a  source  of 
profit.  The  profit-making  quality  of  money  has  wiped 
out  all  moral  scruples  against  the  taking  of  interest.  In 


14  UX)KING  FORWARD 

order  to  quiet  the  religious  conscience  translators  have 
used  the  word  usury  where  the  original  speaks  of  inter- 
est. 

It  now  remains  for  me  to  test  the  theory  and  to  see 
whether  it  proves  true  in  the  evolution  of  the  State,  the 
family  and  the  status  of  woman.  For  this  purpose  I 
will,  in  as  few  words  as  I  can,  always  confining  myself 
to  what  is  necessary  to  support  and  prove  the  theory, 
describe  the  development  of  social  organization  together 
with  the  family  and  the  status  of  woman,  beginning  in 
prehistoric  times,  when  our  forefathers  still  lived  in  a 
state  of  savagery,  and  following  it  up  to  our  own  time 
and  civilization.  I  shall  endeavor  to  show  the  influence 
and  effect  of  economic  conditions  on  the  progressive 
changes  in  the  structure  of  society  and  social  institu- 
tions, as  well  as  the  influence  of  moral  ideas,  as  they 
have  sprung  from  the  economic  conditions.  Much  of 
the  knowledge  which  I  possess,  regarding  these  things, 
I  owe  to  the  study  of  Lewis  H.  Morgan's  ethnological 
researches,  the  results  of  which  are  published  in  his  book 
"Ancient  Society." 

Most  certainly,  our  knowledge  of  pre-historic  insti- 
tutions, and  even  of  many  institutions  within  historic 
periods,  rests  on  theory  only.  For,  those  living  at  any 
certain  time  presume  a  general  understanding  of  their 
institutions  and  never  think  of  explaining  them  suffici- 
ently for  the  understanding  of  posterity.  Therefore,  what 
we  know  of  the  Grecian  and  Roman  gens  is  as  much  a 
hypothesis  as  what  we  know  of  pre-historic  group  fami- 
lies. But  we  are  not  without  very  strong  evidence.  It 
consists  of  customs  and  usages  prevailing  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  historic  period,  and  continuing  even  up  to 
the  present  time;  further  in  ancient  myths  and  legenJs 


INTRODUCTION  15 

which  are  always  the  reflex  of  actual  life,  and  although 
untrue,  are  based  upon  actual  facts,  beliefs  or  customs. 
Human  phantasy  is  not  able  to  invent  what  has  not  been 
perceived  before  by  the  senses.  It  may  exaggerate  or 
minimize  actual  form  and  action,  it  may  idealize  them 
or  may  be  better  pleased  by  the  grotesque,  but  it  cannot 
invent  something  absolutely  new.  In  the  description  of 
their  gods  men  have  never  reached  beyond  the  human 
form,  and  ancient  mythologies  are  nothing  but  the  re- 
flex of  human  life. 

Another  source  of  evidence  are  the  customs  and  in- 
stitutions of  the  aborigines  of  America,  Asia,  Africa  and 
Australia.  Even  the  most  civilized  peoples  of  oui  times 
have,  ages  ago,  been  in  the  same  condition  as  these  are 
now.  As  equal  causes  produce  equal  effects,  our  insti- 
tutions in  those  past  ages  were  in  all  probability  similar 
to  the  institutions  of  the  still  existing  savages  and  bar- 
barians. The  latter's  life  is  a  mirror  in  which  we  see 
the  reflex  of  our  own  life  in  the  past. 

For  the  purposes  of  convenience  and  easy  reference, 
I  shall  follow  Morgan  also  in  dividing  the  time  prior  to 
civilization  into  the  two  periods  of  savagery  and  barbar- 
ism, and  each  of  these  two  periods  into  three  sub-peri- 
ods, namely  the  lower,  the  middle  and  the  upper  status. 

The  lower  status  of  savagery  commenced  with  the 
infancy  of  the  human  race  and  ended  with  the  acquisi- 
tion of  a  fish  subsistence  and  a  knowledge  of  the  use  of 
fire.  Men  subsisted  upon  fruits  and  nuts.  Articulate 
speech  commenced  in  this  period.  Each  subsequent 
status  commencing  where  the  previous  one  ends,  it  be- 
comes only  necessary  to  state  where  the  others  ended. 

The  middle  status  of  savagery  ended  with  the  inven- 
tion of  the  bow  and  arrow.  The  Australians  and  the 


16  BOOKING  FORWARD 

greater  part  of  the  Polynesians,  when  discovered,  were 
in  this  status. 

The  upper  status  of  savagery  ended  with  the  inven- 
tion of  the  art  of  pottery.  In  this  status  were  a  num- 
ber of  Indian  tribes  in  the  far  North- West  of  the  United 
States,  when  those  tribes  were  discovered. 

The  lower  status  of  barbarism  ends,  in  the  Eastern 
hemisphere,  with  the  domestication  of  animals,  and  in 
the  Western  with  the  cultivation  of  maize  and  the  use 
of  the  adobe  brick.  The  Indian  tribes  East  of  the  Mis- 
souri river  were  in  this  status. 

The  middle  status  of  barbarism  ended  with  the  in- 
vention of  the  smelting  of  iron.  To  it  belonged  the  vil- 
lage Indians  of  New  Mexico,  Mexico,  Central  America 
and  Peru;  in  Europe  the  ancient  Britons  etc. 

The  upper  status  of  barbarism  ended  with  the  inven- 
tion of  a  phonetic  alphabet  and  the  use  of  writing  in 
letters  or  hieroglyphics.  To  it  belonged  the  Grecian 
tribes  of  the  Homeric  age,  the  Italian  tribes  shortly  be- 
fore the  founding  of  Rome,  the  Germanic  tribes  of  the 
times  of  Cesar,  etc. 

The  upper  status  of  barbarism  is  followed  by  the 
period  of  civilization. 

Our  ancestors  passed  through  all  these  stages  and 
were  in  the  upper  status  of  barbarism  when  they  first 
became  known  to  history.  Their  experience  prior  to  that 
has  been  lost,  and  became  discoverable  only  in  the  insti- 
tutions and  customs  which  existed  at  the  time  when  the 
light  of  history  first  shone  upon  them.  Customs  and  in- 
stitutions, as  a  rule,  outlive  their  usefulness  and  neces- 
sity, but  enable  us  to  suppose,  with  considerable  cer- 
tainty, what  the  conditions  were  that  made  them  useful 
or  necessary.  The  prehistoric  period  of  the  Grecian, 


INTRODUCTION  17 

Roman,  and  German  tribes  ends,  and  their  historic 
period  begins  in  the  middle  status  of  barbarism.  The 
light  of  history  falls  back  upon  times  from  three  to  five 
thousand  years  behind  us.  The  length  of  the  life  of  the 
human  race  prior  to  that  is  beyond  the  possibility  of 
measurement,  and  can  only  be  conjectured  by  geologists. 
How  far  back  social  organization  dates,  we  do  not 
know;  it  must  already  have  commenced  in  the  lowest 
stage  of  savagery.  For,  even  among  the  aborigines  of 
Australia  and  Polynesia  who  have  not  advanced  beyond 
the  middle  status  of  savagery,  there  exists  a  very  com- 
plex system  of  social  organization  and  family  relations, 
more  complete  than  most  civilized  people  dream  of,  and 
which  can  only  be  the  product  of  development,  running 
through  immense  lengths  of  time.  I  use  the  term  social 
organization  in  contradistinction  to  political  organization, 
the  former  resting  on  personal  relations,  the  latter  on 
territory.  The  first  is  earlier  in  the  order  of  time,  for 
no  political  organization,  no  state  government  was  pos- 
sible before  a  tribe  had  settled  down  upon  a  definite  ter- 
ritory and  commenced  village  life,  and  even  after  that 
the  social  organization  lasted  for  a  long  time,  until  politi^ 
cal  organization  was  invented.  In  fact,  the  political  or- 
ganization or  state  founded  upon  territory,  is  a  very  late 
invention  in  the  course  of  human  progress ;  among  Euro- 
pean nations  it  is  not  older  than  about  twenty-five  hun- 
dred years.  It  was,  in  Europe,  first  established  in  Greece 
toward  the  end  of  the  fifth  or  the  beginning  of  the  sixth 
century  before  Christ  by  the  legislation  known  as  that  of 
Ceisthenes,  who  divided  Attica  into  one  hundred  demoi, 
a  kind  of  town  or  township.  The  town  or  township,  that 
is,  a  certain  area  of  territory,  is  the  unit  of  the  state,  but 
the  unit  of  social  organization  was  the  gens,  which  was 


18  LOOKING  FORWARD 

a  congregation  of  individuals.  The  gens  was  the  unit  of 
the  Roman  social  organization  until  the  Romans  formed 
a  political  organization.  Of  course,  it  must  not  be  sup- 
posed that  all  peoples  and  tribes  upon  earth  called  the 
unit  of  their  organization  gens.  All  of  them  had  differ- 
ent names;  some  perhaps  had  no  name  at  all  for  it;  but 
it  was  everywhere  the  same,  or  nearly  the  same,  in  char- 
acter and  function,  and  the  name  gens  is  used  by  me  for 
all  of  them.  The  Roman  gens  existed  within  the  his- 
toric period,  and  even  the  greatest  and  most  learned  his- 
torians never  understood  clearly  its  nature  until  Morgan, 
who  made  his  researches  among  the  American  Indians, 
showed  the  analogies  between  their  social  organization 
and  that  of  the  ancient  Grecians  and  Romans.  The  gens 
rests  upon  the  principle  of  kinship  and  had  its  beginning 
in  family  relations.  Like  all  human  institutions,  it  has 
run  through  a  long  course  of  evolution,  but,  for  the  pur- 
poses of  this  book,  I  need  not  farther  dwell  upon  this 
point. 

The  gens  (pi.  gentes)  was,  as  already  mentioned,  an 
organization  resting  on  personal  relations.  A  number  of 
gentes  formed  a  phratry,  as  the  Grecians,  or  a  curia,  as 
the  Romans  called  it ;  and  a  number  of  phratries  formed 
the  tribe.  Sometimes  the  tribes  attained  to  the  forma- 
tion of  a  nation  or  a  confederacy  as  the  Hebrews,  the 
Grecians,  the  Romans,  the  Iroquois  Indians,  etc.,  in  other 
cases  they  never  came  to  that. 

It  is  quite  difficult  for  us  to  conceive  of  and  compre- 
hend an  organization  based  upon  personal  relations  only, 
and  having  no  relation  whatever  to  the  territory  inhab- 
ited, because  it  is  entirely  unsuitable  to  the  modern  sys- 
tem of  industry,  trade  and  commerce,  and  particularly  so; 
to  the  modern  system  of  private  ownership  in  land.  But 


INTRODUCTION  19 

it  was  suitable  to  the  conditions  prevailing  in  ancient 
times,  or  is  suitable  to  the  conditions  prevailing  among 
peoples  who  have  not  yet  reached  our  stage  of  civiliza- 
tion. 

The  Athenian  nation  consisted  of  four  tribes,  each 
tribe  had  three  phratries  and  each  phratry  thirty  gentes, 
so  that  the  Athenian  nation  consisted  of  three  hundred 
and  sixty  gentes.  The  number  of  individuals  in  a  gens 
varied,  but  each  Athenian  had  his  name  inscribed  in  the 
rolls  of  a  gens.  The  members  of  a  gens  had  a  common 
name,  which  was  the  name  of  a  supposed  common  ances- 
tor. (Among  the  Indians  and  other  savages  or  barbar- 
ians the  name  was  or  is  generally  that  of  an  animal ;  the 
figure  of  it,  or  any  other  figure  representing  the  sup- 
posed ancestor,  was  or  is  usually  used  as  a  symbol  or 
totem.) 

The  other  characteristics  of  the  gens  were  that  its 
members  had  a  common  place  of  worship,  a  common 
place  of  burial,  and  usually  utilized  the  land  in  common. 
They  practiced  common  religious  rites,  they  possessed 
mutual  rights  of  succession  to  the  property  of  deceased 
members,  they  were  under  reciprocal  obligations  of  help 
and  defense,  had  arrangements  for  the  redress  of  wrong, 
frequently  by  the  way  of  blood-revenge,  and  elected  their 
chiefs. 

The  members  of  a  gens  considered  themselves  as 
blood-relatives,  although  they  were  not  always  actually 
such,  wherefore  marriage  within  the  gens  was  forbidden. 
In  the  beginning  of  this  form  of  organization  the  chil- 
dren belonged  to  the  gens  of  the  mother,  and  descent 
was  in  the  female  line.  The  reasons  for  this  as  well  as 
for  the  change,  I  will  state  in  connection  with  the  his- 
tory of  the  family.  But  while  this  system  of  maternal 


30  BOOKING  FORWARD 

descent  lasted,  the  position  of  the  woman  was  probably  a 
superior  one,  and  there  prevailed  among  many  tribes 
what  I.  I.  Bachofen  calls  a  system  of  "Mutterrecht" 
(mother-right)  a  gynecocracy.  The  change  took  place 
on  account  of  the  development  of  property,  and  after- 
ward the  children  belonged  to  the  father's  gens,  and  de- 
scent was  in  the  male  line. 

From  what  we  are  able  to  learn  of  the  functions  of 
the  phratry,  it  is  almost  impossible  to  say  what  they  were. 
It  seems,  however,  that  they  were  not  of  a  governmental 
nature  but  rather  of  a  religious  and  military  character. 
They  probably  manifested  themselves  at  the  burial  of  the 
dead,  at  public  games,  at  religious  festivals  and  at  coun- 
cils of  the  people  where  the  grouping  of  chiefs  and  peo- 
ple would  be  by  phratries  rather  than  by  gentes.  There 
is  also  some  evidence  that  they  were  of  military  im- 
portance. 

The  gentes,  the  phratries  and  the  tribes  had  their 
chiefs  and  leaders,  upon  whom  devolved  military  as  well 
as  priestly  duties.  They  often  assembled  in  council,  but 
the  final  decision  rested  with  the  general  assembly  of  the 
people. 

This  form  of  government  existed  among  the  Grecians 
and  Romans  up  to  and  within  the  historic  period.  There 
is  plenty  of  evidence  that  it  existed  among  the  ancient 
Teutons.  The  Irish  sept  and  the  Scottish  clan  were,  in 
all  probability,  originally  gentes.  The  fact  that  in  China 
villages  can  be  found  in  which  all  the  inhabitants  bear 
the  same  family  name  is  probably  proof  that  the  same 
organization  prevailed  in  ancient  times  among  the 
Chinese;  the  Hebrew  mishpaka  (family)  was  probably  a 
gens,  and  the  beth  ab  (father's  house)  a  phratry.  In 
Numbers,  Chap.  3,  v.  14-20,  relating  the  counting  of  trie 


INTRODUCTION  21 

children  of  Levi  we  find  among  22,300  male  persons  not 
more  than  eight  family  names.  The  same  kind  of  organi  • 
zation  still  exists  among  the  aborigines  of  America ;  there 
is  ample  proof  that  it  existed  among  the  Aztecs  and 
Incas;  it  exists  among  the  aborigines  of  Australia,  and 
undoubtedly  this  form  of  government  appeared  and  dis- 
appeared among  all  peoples  with  the  growing  into  and 
the  growing  out  of  certain  stages  of  civilization. 

As  to  the  causes  which  led  to  the  transformation  of 
the  gentile  organization  into  the  political  organization, 
we  can  learn  them  best  from  the  history  of  Athens,  be- 
cause the  final  change  took  place  within  the  historic  per- 
iod, as  already  remarked.  Studying  the  legislation  of 
Theseus  and  Solon,  we  find  that  the  economic  conditions, 
then  existing,  had  fully  outgrown  the  old  organization. 
Private  ownership  in  land  had  gradually  become  estab- 
lished, trade  and  commerce  had  developed  and  grown, 
the  ancient  communistic  customs  had  more  or  less  disap- 
peared, the  influx  of  strangers  created  a  class  of  inhab- 
itants that  stood  outside  the  social  organization  and,  con- 
sequently, had  no  part  whatever  in  the  government,  some 
of  the  people  became  rich,  others  remained  poor,  and 
with  this  the  economic  class  made  its  appearance.  The 
old  organization  gradually  became  incompatible  with  the 
new  conditions.  The  real  cause  of  the  resulting  evils, 
however,  was  not  discovered  until  the  nation  had  experi- 
mented through  hundreds  of  years  with  all  sorts  of 
reform.  (This  fact  will  give  us  food  for  reflection  when 
we  compare  the  situation  with  the  economic  situation  of 
our  time.)  The  existence  of  economic  classes  first  found 
expression  in  the  legislation  of  Theseus.  By  this  the  peo- 
ple were  divided  into  three  classes,  irrespective  of  the 
gentes,  namely  the  Eupatridae,  or  well  born;  the  Geo- 


22  BOOKING  FORWARD 

mori,  or  husbandmen,  and  the  Demiurgi  or  artisans. 
The  principal  offices  were  assigned  to  the  first  class.  The 
classification  recognized  property  and  the  aristocratic  ele- 
ment. If  in  modern  legislation,  especially  under  repub- 
lican institutions,  class-distinctions  are  not  recognized, 
such  is  not  evidence  of  their  non-existence,  but  of  the 
strength  of  economic  influences,  which  is  great  enough 
not  to  need  such  recognition  for  its  support  and  main- 
tenance. 

After  the  legislation  of  Theseus  came  that  of  Draco: 
then  that  of  Solon,  and  then  that  of  Cleisthenes,  who 
created  a  government  based  on  territory  and  property  in 
place  of  the  one  based  upon  personal  relations.  The  ter- 
ritory of  the  nation  was  divided  into  one  hundred  dis- 
tricts called  demoi,  with  local  governments.  The  class- 
distinctions  in  the  general  government  were  retained.  It 
was  the  first  European  state-government.  Simple  as  the 
organization  of  the  state  appears  to  us,  the  idea  did  not 
occur  to  the  Athenian  people  before  they  had  wrestled 
with  the  subject  through  several  centuries.  Is  it  not 
probable  that,  at  some  future  time,  the  historian  will 
express  his  astonishment  at  the  difficulties  which  we 
encountered  in  solving  problems  which  will  appear  quite 
simple  then? 

After  the  creation  of  the  Athenian  state,  the  old  gen- 
tile organization,  of  course,  ran  along  with  the  new  or- 
ganization for  some  time.  But  being  deprived  of  all  act- 
ual functions,  it  became  more  and  more  meaningless  and 
gradually  died  out,  leaving  its  traces,  however,  in  many 
customs,  usages  and  institutions. 

Turning  now  to  the  growth  and  development  of  the 
family,  I  shall  again  follow  Morgan  whose  researches 
seem  to  me  to  be  deeper  and  whose  conclusions  to  be 


INTRODUCTION  23 

riper  than  those  of  any  other  ethnologist,  Lubbock  and 
McLellan  included.  From  the  historical  standpoint,  and 
principally  that  of  evolution,  the  latter's  theory  of  exo- 
gamy and  endogamy  seems  to  me  quite  unsatisfactory. 

Morgan  says :  "The  stages  of  the  growth  of  the  fam- 
ily are  embodied  in  systems  of  consanguinity  and  affinity, 
and  in  usages  relating  to  marriage,  by  means  of  which, 
collectively,  the  family  can  be  definitely  traced  through 
several  successive  forms."  The  monogamian  family,  that 
is  the  present  form,  prevailing  among  all  civilized 
nations,  is  the  fifth  in  the  succession  of  a  number  of 
forms.  It  is  founded  upon  the  marriage  of  one  man 
with  one  woman,  with  an  exclusive  cohabitation,  the  lat- 
ter constituting  the  essential  element  of  the  institution. 

The  preceding  four  forms  of  the  family  are  as  fol- 
lows: 

First:    The  consanguine  family. 

It  was  founded  upon  the  intermarriage  of  brothers 
and  sisters  in  a  group.  Evidence  still  remains  in  the 
oldest  of  existing  systems  of  consanguinity,  the  Malayan, 
tending  to  show  that  this,  the  first  form  of  the  family, 
was  anciently  as  universal  as  this  system  of  consanguin- 
ity which  it  created. 

Second:    The  Punaluan  family. 

Its  name  is  derived  from  the  Hawaian  relationship  of 
Punalua,  (emphasis  on  the  second  syllable).  It  was 
founded  upon  the  intermarriage  of  several  brothers  to 
each  other's  wives  in  a  group;  and  of  several  sisters  to 
each  other's  husbands  in  a  group.  But  the  term  brother 
as  here  used,  included  the  first,  second,  third  and  even 
more  remote  male  cousins,  all  of  whom  were  considered 
brothers  to  each  other,  as  we  consider  own  brothers ;  and 
the  term  sister  included  the  first,  second,  third  and  even 


24  BOOKING   FORWARD 

more  remote  female  cousins,  all  of  whom  were  sisters  to 
each  other,  the  same  as  own  sisters.  This  form  of  the 
family  supervened  upon  the  consanguine.  It  created  the 
Turanian  system  of  consanguinity.  Both  this  and  the 
previous  form  belong  to  the  period  of  savagery. 

Third.    The  Syndiasmian  family. 

The  term  is  from  the  Greek  word  meaning  to  pair. 
It  was  founded  upon  the  pairing  of  a  male  with  a  female 
under  the  form  of  marriage,  but  without  an  exclusive 
cohabitation.  It  was  the  germ  of  the  monogamian  fam- 
ily. Divorce  or  separation  was  at  the  option  of  both, 
husband  and  wife.  This  form  of  the  family  failed  to 
create  a  system  of  consanguinity. 

Fourth:    The  patriarchal  family. 

It  was  founded  upon  the  marriage  of  one  man  to  sev- 
eral wives.  It  was  the  family  of  the  Hebrew  pastoral 
tribes,  the  chiefs  and  principal  men  of  which  practiced 
polygamy.  Undoubtedly  it  prevailed  also  among  other 
Semitic  tribes  than  the  Hebrew.  It  exercised  but  little 
influence  upon  human  affairs  for  want  of  universality. 
It  is  found  exclusively  among  pastoral  peoples. 

Morgan  spent  most  of  his  life  among  the  Iroquois 
Indians,  into  one  of  whose  tribes  he  caused  himself  to 
be  adopted,  studying  their  customs  and  institutions.  He 
found  among  them  a  system  of  consanguinity  and  affinity 
entirely  inconsistent  with  the  form  of  their  family.  The 
latter  was  the  Syndiasmian,  and  in  reference  to  relation- 
ships arising  out  of  it,  there  could  be  no  doubt  who  was 
father,  mother,  son,  daughter,  brother  or  sister.  Yet,  the 
Iroquois  Indian  not  only  calls  his  own  children  his  sons 
and  daughters,  but  also  those  of  his  brothers,  and  the 
children  of  his  brothers  call  him  father.  The  children 
of  his  sisters,  however,  he  calls  his  nephews  and  nieces, 


INTRODUCTION  25 

and  they  call  him  uncle.  The  Iroquois  woman  calls  the 
children  of  her  sisters  her  sons  and  daughters,  just  as 
her  own,  and  they  call  her  mother;  but  the  children  of 
her  brother  are  her  nephews  and  nieces,  and  they  call  her 
aunt.  Furthermore,  the  children  of  brothers  call  each 
other  brothers  and  sisters,  as  do  the  children  of  sisters, 
but  the  children  of  a  brother  call  the  children  of  his  sis- 
ter cousins,  and  likewise  do  the  children  of  a  sister  call 
the  children  of  her  brother  cousins.  And  they  do  not 
only  call  each  other  so,  but  treat  each  other  according 
to  this  expressed  relationship,  and  build  their  entire  sys- 
tem of  consanguinity  and  affinity  upon  it. 

The  same  system  of  consanguinity  and  affinity  and 
its  inconsistency  with  the  prevailing  form  of  the  family 
exists  among  all  the  Indians  and  among  many  tribes  in 
the  East  Indies  and  in  Hindostan,  and  partially  it  exists 
among  the  African  and  Australian  tribes. 

Now,  the  form  of  the  family  which  was  still  existing 
during  the  first  part  of  the  nineteenth  century  among  the 
Kanakas,  the  original  inhabitants  of  Hawaii,  would  cre- 
ate exactly  the  system  of  consanguinity  existing  among 
the  Indians,  it  would  create  exactly  such  fathers,  moth- 
ers, brothers  and  sisters.  But,  remarkable  to  say,  the 
system  of  consanguinity  prevailing  among  the  Kanakas 
was  different  from  that  described  and  also  inconsistent 
with  their  form  of  family.  Among  the  Hawaiians  the 
children  of  a  man  call  the  children  of  his  brothers  and 
of  his  sisters  their  brothers  and  sisters,  that  is  to  say  the 
relationship  which  we  call  that  of  cousins,  does  not  exist, 
but  they  are  all  brothers  and  sisters.  Equally  unknown, 
of  course,  is  the  relationship  of  uncle  and  aunt,  nephew 
and  niece.  This  system  of  consanguinity,  called  the 
Malayan  system,  is  found,  generally,  in  Polynesia,  but 


26  LOOKING  FORWARD 

nowhere  exists  a  form  of  family  which  corresponds  to 
it.  It  must,  therefore,  be  concluded  that  it  is  the  pro- 
duct of  a  form  of  the  family  which  has  become  extinct 
We  are  enabled,  however,  to  construe  this  form  of  the 
family  out  of  the  system  of  consanguinity  which  we  find, 
but  which  does  not  harmonize  with  any  of  the  families 
existing. 

The  reason  why  systems  of  consanguinity  are  untrue 
to  the  forms  of  the  family  together  with  which  they  ex- 
ist, is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  the  form  of  the  family 
advances  faster  of  necessity  than  systems  of  consanguin- 
ity which  follow  to  record  the  family  relationships.  And 
it  must  not  be  supposed  that  the  types  of  the  family  men- 
tioned are  separated  from  each  other  by  sharply  defined 
lines;  on  the  contrary,  the  first  passes  into  the  second, 
the  second  into  the  third,  and  so  forth.  One  has  suc- 
cessively sprung  from  the  other,  and  they  represent  col- 
lectively the  growth  of  the  idea  of  the  family. 

.  Three  of  the  forms  mentioned,  the  consanguine,  the 
punaluan  and  the  monogamian  family  were  radical, 
because  they  were  sufficiently  general  and  influential  to 
create  three  distinct  systems  of  consanguinity,  all  of 
which  still  exist  in  living  forms.  The  remaining  two, 
the  syndiasmian  and  the  patriarchal  were  intermediate, 
and  not  sufficiently,  influential  upon  human  affairs  to 
create  a  new,  or  modify  essentially  the  then  existing  sys- 
tem of  consanguinity. 

It  will  now  be  in  order  to  describe  these  different 
forms  of  the  family. 

i.    The  consanguine  family. 

It  is  the  first  and  most  ancient  form  of  the  institution 
and  has  ceased  to  exist  even  among  the  lowest  tribes  of 
savages.  Its  existence  is  proven,  however,  by  the  Ma- 


INTRODUCTION  27 

layan  system  of  consanguinity  and  affinity  which  has  out- 
lived for  innumerable  centuries  the  marriage  customs  in 
which,  it  originated,  and  which  remains  to  attest  the  fact 
that  such  a  family  existed  when  the  system  was  formed.  It 
exists  among  the  Hawaiians  and  other  Polynesian  tribes. 
Under  this  system  there  are  five  categories  of  blood-rela- 
tionship, into  which  all  blood-relatives,  near  or  remote, 
are  classified.  Speaking  as  a  Hawaiian,  the  children  of 
my  brother  are  my  children  also,  their  children  also  my 
grandchildren;  it  is  the  same  with  my  sister's  children. 
In  addressing  the  wives  of  my  brothers,  I  call  them  also 
my  wives.  My  father's  brother  is  my  father,  my  grand- 
father's brother  also  my  grandfather.  All  the  children 
of  my  father's  brothers  and  sisters  are  my  brothers  and 
sisters  and  so  forth.  Uncles,  aunts,  nephews,  nieces, 
cousins  are  unknown. 

This  system  of  relationship  is  found  not  only  in  Ha- 
waii, but  also  among  the  Maoris  of  New  Zealand,  among 
the  Samoans  and  on  many  islands  in  the  Pacific  ocean. 
It  does  not  correspond  with  the  form  of  family  prevail- 
ing among  them  now. 

The  fact  that  as  a  Hawaiian  I  call  my  brother's  wives 
also  my  wives,  and  that,  speaking  as  a  female,  I  call  my 
sister's  husbands  also  my  husbands,  that  the  children  of 
all  my  brothers  and  sisters  are  called  by  me  my  children, 
and  so  forth,  proves  the  existence  of  a  family  in  which 
this  relationship  existed,  not  only  in  name,  but  in  fact, 
and  that  it  must  have  been  a  family,  consisting  of  a  num- 
ber of  natural  brothers  and  sisters,  married  in  a  group, 
so  that  all  the  brothers  together  were  the  husbands  of 
all  the  sisters  together.  This  is  the  only  imaginable  form 
of  the  family  that  could  produce  the  Malayan  system  of 


28  LOOKING   FORWARD 

relationship.  (I  will  show  later  on,  that  Morgan  is  prob- 
ably mistaken  as  to  that.) 

The  consanguine  family  was  the  first  organized  form 
of  society,  and  necessarily  an  improvement  upon  the 
previous  unorganized  state,  whatever  that  may  have 
been. 

2..    The  Punaluan  family. 

This  family  has  existed  in  Europe,  Asia,  and  America* 
within  the  historical  period,  and  in  Polynesia  within  the 
last  century.  Morgan  says:  With  a  wide  prevalence  in 
the  tribes  of  mankind  in  the  status  of  savagery,  it 
remained  in  some  instances  among  tribes  who  had 
advanced  into  the  lower  status  of  barbarism,  and  in  one 
case,  that  of  the  Britons,  among  tribes  who  had  attained 
the  middle  status. 

The  transition  from  the  consanguine  family  into  th« 
Punaluan  family  was  produced  by  the  gradual  exclusion 
of  own  brothers  and  sisters  from  the  marriage  relation^ 
the  evils  of  which  could  not  forever  escape  human  obser- 
vation. 

Under  the  Hawaiian  system  of  consanguinity  a  mac 
calls  his  wife's  sisters  his  wives,  not  only  her  own  sis* 
ters,  but  also  her  collateral  sisters,  that  is  the  daughter* 
of  her  mother's  sisters  and  her  cousins  in  remoter 
degrees.  But  the  husband  of  his  wife's  sister  he  calls 
punalua,  i.  e.,  his  intimate  friend  or  companion.  This 
word  has  been  used  by  Morgan  to  give  a  name  to  this 
form  of  family.  The  husbands  of  the  several  sisters  of 
his  wife  he  calls  also  punalua.  They  were  jointly  inter- 
married in  the  group.  These  husbands  were,  probably, 
not  brothers,  if  they  were,  the  blood  relationship  would 
naturally  have  prevailed  over  the  affineal,  but  their  wives 
were  sisters  own  and  collateral.  In  this  case  the  sister- 


INTRODUCTION  29 

hood  of  the  wives  was  the  basis  upon  which  the  group 
was  formed,  and  their  husbands  stood  to  each  other  in 
the  relationship  of  punalua.  In  the  other  group  which 
rests  upon  the  brotherhood  of  the  husbands  a  woman 
calls  her  husband's  brother  her  husband.  All  the  brothers 
of  her  husband,  own  as  well  as  collateral,  that  are  sons 
of  his  father's  brothers  or  cousins  in  second,  third  or 
remoter  degree,  were  also  her  husbands.  But  the  wife 
of  her  husband's  brother  she  calls  punalua,  and  the  sev- 
eral wives  of  her  husband's  brothers  stand  to  her  in  the 
same  relationship  of  punalua.  These  wives  were,  prob- 
ably, not  sisters  of  each  other,  for  the  reason  stated  in 
the  other  case,  although  exceptions  doubtless  existed 
under  both  branches.  All  these  wives  stood  to  each 
other  in  the  relationship  of  punalua. 

The  punaluan  family  was  a  group  family  like  the 
consanguine.  While  the  consanguine  family  consisted 
altogether  of  brothers  and  sisters,  in  the  punaluan  family 
a  number  of  brothers  were  in  the  beginning  married  to 
a  number  of  sisters,  not  their  own,  in  a  group,  and  later 
on,  only  one  part  of  the  family,  either  the  male  or  the 
female  part,  consisted  either  of  brothers  or  sisters. 

Even  if  we  had  not  discovered  this  family  in  actual 
existence  in  the  last  century,  proof  of  its  former  preval- 
ence would  be  the  Turanian  system  of  consanguinity 
and  affinity,  just  as  the  Malayan  system  of  relationship 
is  proof  of  the  existence  of  the  consanguine  family. 

Traces  of  the  punaluan  custom  remained  here  and 
there,  down  to  the  middle  period  of  barbarism,  in  excep- 
tional cases  in  European,  Asiatic  and  American  tribes. 
The  most  remarkable  illustration  is  given  by  Cesar  in 
stating  the  marriage  customs  of  the  ancient  Britons.  He 
observed  that  by  tens  and  twelves  husbands  possessed 


30  BOOKING  FORWARD 

their  wives  in  common,  and  especially  brothers  with 
brothers,  and  parents  with  their  children.  As  to  the  lat- 
ter he  was  certainly  mistaken. 

The  most  positive  proof  of  the  existence  of  this  form 
of  the  family  is  the  Turanian  system  of  Consanguinity 
and  affinity  which  prevails  in  about  seventy  American 
Indian  tribes,  in  South  India  among  the  Hindoos,  in  a 
part  of  North  India,  also  partially  in  Australia;  traces 
of  it  have  been  found  in  part  of  Africa,  but  the  system 
of  the  African  tribes  approaches  nearer  the  Malayan;  it 
certainly  was  universal  among  the  North  American  abor- 
igines and  has  been  traced  sufficiently  among  those  of 
South  America  to  render  probable  its  equally  universal 
prevalence  among  them. 

It  recognizes  all  the  relationships  under  the  Aryan, 
that  is  the  modern  system,  besides  an  additional  number 
unnoticed  by  the  latter.  No  other  system  of  consan- 
guinity, found  among  men,  approaches  it  in  elaborate- 
ness of  discrimination  or  in  the  extent  of  special  char- 
acteristics. It  recognizes  relationships  for  which  mod- 
ern languages  have  no  names,  it  distinguishes  between 
brothers  and  sisters  as  to  their  age.  So  for  instance,  the 
relationship  between  me  and  my  older  brother  bears  a 
different  name  from  that  between  me  and  my  younger 
brother.  For  many  relationships  which  we  can  only  des- 
ignate descriptively,  it  has  special  names,  as  for  my 
mother's  mother's  sister's  great-great-granddaughter,  or 
my  fathers'  fathers'  fathers'  sister's  daughter's  daughter. 
It  is  called  Turanian  after  the  part  of  Asia  called  Turan. 
The  wonder  is  how  savages  and  barbarians  could  work 
out  and  use  such  an  elaborate  system  with  such  a  rich 
nomenclature.  It  is  certainly  bewildering  and  confusing 


INTRODUCTION  31 

to  us.  Its  existence  is  proof  of  the  punaluan  family  be- 
cause no  other  family  could  produce  the  system. 

But  while  the  punaluan  family  went  out  of  existence, 
the  system  of  relationship  continued  to  last,  and  its  terms 
were  used  and  still  are  used  among  nations  and  tribes 
among  which  the  subsequent  family  prevails,  namely  the 
Syndiasmian. 

3.     The  Syndiasmian  family. 

When  the  American  aborigines  were  discovered,  that 
portion  of  them  who  were  in  the  lower  status  of  barbar- 
ism had  attained  to  the  syndiasmian  or  pairing  family^ 
This  family  was  special  and  peculiar.  Several  of  them 
were  usually  found  in  one  house,  the  so-called  long 
houses,  forming  a  communal  household,  in  which  the 
principle  of  communism  in  living  was  practiced.  In 
many  instances  these  households  were  presided  over  by 
the  mother  (perhaps  under  the  system  which  Bachofen 
calls  motherright).  Morgan  is  of  the  opinion  that  the 
fact  of  the  conjunction  of  several  such  families  in  a  com- 
mon household  is  of  itself  an  admission  that  the  family 
was  too  feeble  an  organization  to  face  alone  the  hard- 
ships of  life.  Nevertheless  it  was  founded  upon  mar- 
riage between  single  pairs,  and  possessed  some  of  the 
characteristics  of  the  monogamian  family.  The  woman 
was  now  something  more  than  the  principal  wife  of  the 
husband,  she  was  his  companion,  the  preparer  of  his 
food,  and  the  mother  of  children  whom  he  now  began 
with  some  assurance  to  regard  as  his  own. 

Marriage,  however,  was  not  founded  upon  sentiment 
but  upon  convenience  and  necessity.  It  was  left,  in  effect, 
to  the  mothers  to  arrange  the  marriages  of  their  children, 
and  they  were  negotiated  generally  without  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  parties  to  be  married,  and  without  asking 


32  LOOKING  FORWARD 

their  previous  consent.  The  relation,  however,  contin- 
ued during  the  pleasure  of  the  parties  and  no  longer.  It 
is  for  this  reason  that  it  is  properly  distinguished  as  the 
pairing  family.  The  husband  could  put  away  his  wife 
at  pleasure  and  take  another  without  offense,  and  the 
woman  enjoyed  the  equal  right  of  leaving  her  husband 
and  accepting  another,  wherein  the  usages  of  her  tribe 
were  not  infringed.  But  a  public  sentiment  gradually 
formed  and  grew  into  strength  against  such  separations. 
When  alienation  arose  between  a  married  pair,  and  their 
separation  became  imminent,  the  kindred  of  each  at- 
tempted a  reconciliation  of  the  parties,  in  which  they 
were  often  successful ;  but  if  they  were  unable  to  remove 
the  difficulty,  their  separation  was  approved.  The  wife 
then  left  the  home  of  her  husband,  taking  with  her  their 
children,  who  were  regarded  as  exclusively  her  own,  and 
her  personal  effects,  upon  which  her  husband  had  no 
claim ;  or,  where  the  wife's  kindred  predominated  in  the 
communal  household,  which  was  usually  the  case,  the 
husband  left  the  home  of  his  wife.  Thus,  the  continu- 
ance of  the  marriage  relation  remained  at  the  option  of 
the  parties.  Such  were  the  usages  of  the  Iroquois  and 
many  other  Indian  tribes.  Among  the  village  Indians 
in  the  middle  status  of  barbarism  the  facts  were  not 
essentially  different,  so  far  as  they  can  be  said  to  be 
known.  A  comparison  of  the  usages  of  the  American 
aborigines  with  respect  to  marriage  and  divorce  shows 
an  existing  similarity  sufficiently  strong  to  imply  original 
identity  of  usages.  Usages  similar  to  those  prevailing 
among  the  Iroquois  and  other  Northern  tribes  are 
reported  by  Spanish  writers  as  having  prevailed  among 
the  Aztecs  and  the  Peruvians. 

In   all    probability   the    Syndiasmian    family    sprang 


INTRODUCTION  33 

from  the  Punaluan  simply  in  this  way  that  although  the 
latter  was  founded  upon  group  marriage,  yet  single 
pairs  did  for  mere  individual  reasons  prefer  each  other, 
so  that  a  man  had  a  principal  wife  among  a  number  of 
wives,  and  a  woman  a  principal  husband  among  a  num- 
ber of  husbands,  and  the  tendency  in  the  punaluan  fam- 
ily, from  the  first,  was  in  the  direction  of  the  syndias- 
mian. 

Two  forms  of  the  family  had  appeared  before  the 
syndiasmian,  and  created  two  great  systems  of  consan- 
guinity, or  rather  two  distinct  forms  of  the  same  system, 
but  this  third  family  neither  produced  a  new  system  nor 
sensibly  modified  the  old.  The  syndiasmian  family  con- 
tinued for  an  unknown  period  of  time  enveloped  in  a 
system  of  consanguinity,  false,  in  the  main,  to  existing 
relationships,  and  which  it  had  no  power  to  break.  This 
was  reserved  for  monogamy,  the  coming  power,  able  to 
dissolve  the  fabric. 

The  syndiasmian  family  had  no  distinct  system  of 
consanguinity  to  prove  its  existence,  like  its  predeces- 
sors ;  but  such  proof  is  unnecessary,  because  it  has  existed 
over  large  portions  of  the  earth  within  the  historical  per-> 
iod,  and  still  exists  in  numerous  barbarous  tribes.  Among 
the  American  aborigines  in  the  lower  status  of  barbar- 
ism, it  was  the  prevailing  form  of  the  family  at  the  epoch 
of  their  discovery.  Among  the  village  Indians  in  the 
middle  status,  it  was  undoubtedly  the  prevailing  form, 
although  the  information  given  by  the  Spanish  writers 
is  vague  and  general.  The  communal  character  of  their 
joint  tenement  houses  is  of  itself  strong  evidence  that 
the  family  had  not  passed  out  of  the  syndiasmian  form. 
It  had  neither  the  individuality  nor  the  exclusiveness 
which  monogamy  implies. 


34  BOOKING  FORWARD 

Having  now  become  acquainted  with  three  forms  of 
the  family  which  existed  prior  to  the  monogamous  fam- 
ily, two  things  are  principally  to  be  noted  in  reference 
to  the  same. 

First,  that  these  forms  existed  prior  to  civilization, 
and  upon  a  stage  in  the  progress  of  culture  when  there 
was  little  property,  at  least  no  private  property  to  speak 
of,  and  the  property  idea  was  unknown  or  in  its  infancy. 
Especially  is  this  the  case  as  to  the  consanguine  and  the 
punaluan  family. 

Second,  in  the  group  family,  of  the  relation  between 
parent  and  child,  only  that  between  mother  and  child 
can  be  definitely  known,  but  not  that  between  father  and 
child.  Nobody  can  know  with  certainty  who,  among 
many  fathers,  his  own  father  is,  nor  can  one  of  the  hus- 
bands of  a  number  of  wives,  point  out  his  own  children. 
The  mother's  brother,  the  maternal  uncle,  was  the  near- 
est relative  after  the  mother  herself.  We  have  many 
proofs  for  this.  For  instance:  Chapter  24  of  Genesis 
tells  us  the  romance  of  Isaac  and  Rebecca.  Verse  53 
reads  as  follows :  And  the  servant  brought  forth  jewels 
of  silver,  and  jewels  of  gold,  and  raiment,  and  gave 
them  to  Rebecca,  he  also  gave  to  her  brothers,  and  to 
her  mother  precious  things.  Nothing  is  said  of  the 
father,  of  whom  we  hear  nothing  but  his  name.  The 
brothers  and  the  mother  gave  her  away,  and  received 
presents  for  her. 

Or  another  instance :  Tacitus,  speaking  of  the  an- 
cient Teutons,  said:  The  mother-brother  considers  his 
nephew  like  his  son,  some  even  consider  the  blood-rela- 
tion between  the  mother's  brother  and  his  nephew  holier 
and  more  binding  than  that  between  father  and  son,  so 


INTRODUCTION  35 

that  when  hostages  were  demanded,  the  sister's  son  was 
considered  to  give  a  greater  guaranty  than  the  own  son. 
Although  at  the  time  of  Isaac  the  Hebrews  had',  al- 
ready, attained  to  the  patriarchal  family,  and  the  Ger- 
mans at  the  time  of  Tacitus  to  the  syndiasmian,  if  not 
the  monogamous  "family,  yet  these  customs  prove  the 
earlier  existence  of  the  group  family.  They  had  re- 
mained after  the  reasons  for  them  had  ceased  to  exist. 
The  reason  which  caused  the  growth  of  the  monoga- 
mous family  out  of  the  syndiasmian,  is,  according  to 
Morgan,  as  follows:  of  the  two  sexes,  the  male,  being 
the  physically  stronger,  most  generally  procured  the  ne- 
cessities of  life.  As  civilization  advanced  and  the  ac- 
cumulation of  property  became  possible,  the  property 
idea  arose  and  spread.  Whether  the  property  consisted 
of  animals  or  stacks  of  grain  or  anything  else,  as  it  was 
accumulated  by  the  males  or  fathers,  it  was  quite  natural 
that  in  course  of  time  they  desired  that  their  property 
should  go  to  their  own  children.  This  was  not  possible 
in  the  group  family,  it  was  scarcely  possible  in  the  syndi- 
asmian. To  accomplish  this  end  a  form-  of  the  family 
became  necessary  which  enabled  a  father  to  distinguish 
his  own  children  from  those  of  other  men.  The  prob- 
lem was  solved  by  the  creation  of  the  monogamian 
family. 

"It  is  impossible,"  says  Morgan,  "to  overestimate  the 
influence  of  property  in  the  civilization  of  mankind.  It 
was  the  power  that  brought  the  Aryan  and  Semitic  na- 
tions out  of  barbarism  into  civilization.  The  growth  of 
the  idea  of  property  in  the  human  mind  commenced  in 
feebleness,  and  ended  in  becoming  its  master  passion. 
Governments  and  laws  are  instituted  with  primary  refer- 
ence to  its  creation,  protection  and  enjoyment.  It  in- 


36  LOOKING  FORWARD 

troduced  human  slavery  as  an  instrument  in  its  produc- 
tion, and  after  the  experience  of  several  thousand  years, 
it  caused  the  abolition  of  slavery  upon  the  discovery  that 
a  freeman  was  a  better  property-making  machine.  The 
cruelty  inherent  in  the  heart  of  man,  which  civilization 
has  softened  without  eradicating,  still  betrays  the  savage 
origin  of  mankind,  and  in  no  way  more  pointedly  than 
in  the  practice  of  human  slavery  through  all  the  cen- 
turies of  recorded  history.  With  the  establishment  of 
the  inheritance  of  property  in  the  children  of  its  owner 
came  the  first  possibility  of  a  strict  monogamian  family. 
Gradually,  though  slowly,  this  form  of  marriage,  with 
an  exclusive  cohabitation,  became  the  rule,  but  it  was 
not  until  civilization  had  commenced,  that  it  became 
permanently  established." 

As  finally  constituted,  this  family  secured  the  pa- 
ternity of  children,  substituted  the  individual  ownership 
of  real  as  well  as  personal  property  for  joint  owner- 
ship, and  an  exclusive  inheritance  by  children  in  the 
place  of  agnatic  inheritance.  It  was  a  slow  growth, 
planting  its  roots  far  back  in  the  period  of  savagery,  a 
final  result,  toward  which  the  experience  of  the  ages 
steadily  tended.  Although  essentially  modern,  it  was 
the  product  of  a  vast  and  varied  experience. 

Before  proceeding  farther  in  the  consideration  of  the 
monogamian  family,  I1  wish  to  say  a  few  words  concern- 
ing the  patriarchal  family.  I  have  not  more  than  men- 
tioned it  so  far.  Our  principal  knowledge  of  this  family 
comes  from  the  Bible.  It  prevailed  principally  among 
the  ancient  Hebrews,  but  no  doubt  also  among  other 
Semitic  tribes.  It  created  no  system  of  relationship  and 
had  no  general  existence.  It  belongs  to  the  upper  period 
of  barbarism  and  remained  for  a  time  after  the  com- 


INTRODUCTION  37 

mencement  of  civilization.  The  chiefs,  and  perhaps 
others,  lived  in  polygamy,  but  this  was  not  the  special 
characteristic  of  it.  It  was  the  organization  of  a  num- 
ber of  persons,  bond  and  free,  into  a  family  under  pa- 
ternal power,  for  the  purpose  of  holding  lands,  and  for 
the  care  of  flocks  and  herds.  The  chief  had  authority 
over  its  members  and  its  property.  Those  held  to  servi- 
tude, and  those  employed  as  servants  lived  in  the  mar- 
riage relation.  It  was  the  incorporation  of  numbers  in 
servile  and  dependent  relation,  before  that  time  un- 
known, rather  than  polygamy,  that  stamped  the  patriar- 
chal family  with  attributes  of  an  original  organization. 
The  nations,  among  whom  it  was  prevalent,  had,  as  far 
as  we  know,  led  at  a  time,  a  nomadic  life,  and  it  was, 
probably,  produced  by  the  peculiarities  and  the  necessi- 
ties growing  out  of  such  a  life. 

Returning  to  the  monogamian  family,  we  must  not 
presume  that  it  was  from  its  beginning  the  same  that  it 
is  now.  It  was  growing  into  its  present  state  by  degrees. 
Among  the  Grecians  in  the  Homeric  age,  as  well  as 
later  on  in  the  historic  period,  we  find  that  chastity  was 
required  of  the  wife  only,  and  that  the  position  of  the 
wife  in  the  household  as  well  as  in  public  life  was  very 
inferior,  so  much  so  that  hetaerism  was,  if  not  approved, 
at  least  not  censured  and  not  considered  a  violation  of 
matrimonial  rights.  Marriage  among  the  Greeks  was 
not  grounded  upon  sentiment  but  upon  necessity  and 
duty.  These  considerations  are  those  which  governed 
the  Iroquois  and  the  Aztecs;  in  fact  they  originated  in 
barbarism,  and  reveal  the  anterior  barbarous  condition 
of  the  ancestors  of  the  Grecian  tribes.  From  first  to 
last  among  the  Greeks  there  was  a  principle  of  egotism 
or  studied  selfishness  at  work  among  the  males,  tending 


38  IX5OKING  FORWARD 

to  lessen  the  appreciation  of  women,  scarcely  found 
among  savages.  It  reveals  itself  in  their  plan  of  domes- 
tic life  which,  in  the  higher  ranks,  secluded  the  wife 
for  the  purpose  of  enforcing  an  exclusive  cohabitation, 
without  admitting  the  reciprocal  obligation  on  the  part 
of  her  husband.  It  implies  the  existence  of  an  anteced- 
ent conjugal  system  of  the  Turanian  type,  against  which 
it  was  designed  to  guard. 

All  of  this  has  reference  to  the  Athenians.  Among 
the  Spartans,  however,  who  were  far  behind  the  Athen- 
ians in  culture  and  refinement,  the  position  of  women 
and  the  purity  of  family  life  were  far  better  than  in 
Athens.  Which,  to  say  the  least,  proves  that  culture 
and  refinement  alone  are  not  a  sufficient  agency  for  the 
elevation  of  the  status  of  woman  and  family  life. 

In  Rome,  the  condition  of  women  was  more  favor- 
able, but  their  subordination  the  same.  Marriage  placed 
the  wife  in  the  power  of  her  husband.  The  husband 
treated  his  wife  as  his  daughter,  and  not  as  his  equal. 
He  had  the  power  of  correction,  and  of  life  and  death 
in  case  of  adultery.  Divorce,  from  the  earliest  period, 
was  at  the  option  of  the  parties,  a  characteristic  of  the 
Syndiasmian  family,  and  transmitted,  probably  from 
that  source. 

Of  the  domestic  life  of  the  ancient  Teutons  we  know 
comparatively  little.  When  they  first  came  into  contact 
with  the  Romans  they  were  in  the  upper  status  of  bar- 
barism, approaching  civilization.  Tacitus  remarks  that 
they  almost  alone  among  barbarians  contented  them- 
selves with  a  single  wife.  This  points  to  monogamy. 
The  remark  that  women  lived  fenced  up  with  chastity, 
and  the  custom  of  giving  a  present  in  the  nature  of  a 
purchasing  gift  to  the  bride,  and  the  severe  punishment 


INTRODUCTION  39 

of  wives  for  unchastity  permits  the  conclusion  that  the 
wife  was  to  a  degree  the  property  of  the  husband.  How- 
ever, as  I  said,  our  knowledge  of  the  married  life  of  the 
ancient  Germans  is  too  limited  to  allow  any  definite  con- 
clusions. 

Altogether,  we  may  assume  that  the  monogamian 
family  grew  in  degrees  to  its  present  status  and  that,  for 
a  long  time,  it  retained  customs  prevailing  under  the 
syndiasmian  form. 

I  have  so  far  followed  Morgan,  frequently  using  his 
own  words,  but  I  do  not  agree  with  all  of  his  hypotheses. 
I  do  not  believe  that1  it  was  solely  the  desire  of  establish- 
ing fathership  with  certainty,  for  the  purpose  of  inherit- 
ance, which  led  to  the  growth  of  the  monogamian  family, 
because,  although  connected  with  property,  it  would  be 
too  much  of  a  sentimental  reason  which,  alone,  could 
hardly  have  had  such  a  far  reaching  influence  among 
barbarians.  I  also  do  not  believe  that  his  description  of 
the  group  family  gives  us  a  true  and  perfect  picture  of 
these  ancient  forms  of  the  family.  Mr.  Morgan  believes 
that  the  organization  of  gentes  was,  probably,  preceded 
by  an  organization  into  marriage  classes,  such  as  the 
Australians  have,  that  the  object  of  this  organization 
was  the  prevention  of  cohabitation  between  near  blood- 
relatives,  and  that  this  object  was  under  the  gentile  or- 
ganization accomplished  by  the  prohibition  of  marriage 
within  the  gens.  However,  the  Australian  marriage 
classes  exist  alongside  of  the  gentes  (frequently  called 
by  writers  totem-groups),  and  of  the  Australian  age- 
classes  Morgan  seems  to  have  had  no  knowledge  what- 
ever. Among  the  still  existing  savage  peoples,  the  Au- 
stralians take  the  lowest  rank  in  point  of  civilization, 
and  their  different  tribes  differ  even  in  degrees.  Their 


40  BOOKING  FORWARD 

customs  are,  therefore,  of  great  interest  and  importance 
in  the  study  of  the  development  of  the  human  race  and 
its  institutions. 

Their  marriage-classes  were  known  to  Morgan,  but 
incompletely.  To  acquaint  the  reader  with  them,  I  will 
describe  the  social  organization  of  one  of  the  most  ad- 
vanced tribes,  the  Kamilaroi.  They  are  divided  into  six 
gentes  or  totem-groups,  their  names  being  Duli,  Murii- 
ra,  Mute,  Dinoun,  Bilba,  Nurai,  all  being  names  of  ani- 
mals. The  first  three  form  a  larger  group,  called  Dilbi, 
believed  to  have  a  common  female  ancestor  and  to  stand 
to  each  other  in  blood-relationship.  The  same  is  the 
case  with  the  other  three  gentes,  except  that  the  name 
of  the  larger  group  is  Kupathin.  They  are  not  allowed 
to  marry  within  their  own  gens,  and  formerly  they  were 
not  even  allowed  to  marry  within  their  large  group,  or 
phratry. 

Irrespective  of  this  organization  they  are  divided  into 
four  marriage-classes,  each  of  which  has  a  male  and  a 
female  division;  these  classes  are: 

Male.  Female. 

1.  Ippai.  Ippata. 

2.  Murri,  Mata. 

3.  Kumbo,  Buta. 

4.  Kubbi,  Kubbota. 
Each  Kamilaroi  belongs  to  one  of  these  classes  and 

is  allowed  to  marry  only  one  of  a  definite  other  class. 
An  Ippai  can  marry  only  a  Kubbota,  a  Kumbo  only  a 
Mata,  a  Murri  only  a  Buta,  and  a  Kubbi  only  an  Ippata. 
The  children  receive  names  different  from  that  of 
the  mother.  The  father's  name  is  not  considered  at  all. 
The  rule  is  as  fellows: 


INTRODUCTION  41 

The  children  of  an  Ippata  are  always: 

Male.  Female. 

Kumbo.  Buta. 

Those  of  a  Mata  always,  Kubbi,  Kubbota. 

Those  of  a  Buta,  Ippai,  Ippata. 

Those  of  a    Kubbota,       Murri,  Mata. 

Consequently  the  male  division  of  a  class  and  the 
female  division  of  it  stand  to  each  other  in  the  relation 
of  brothers  and  sisters. 

The  object  of  this  organization  was  evidently  to  ex- 
clude own  brothers  and  sisters  from  marriage.  But  in 
order  to  prevent  marriage  between  ancestors  and  lineal 
descendants,  the  Australians  are  divided  into  age-classes, 
a  division  of  which  Morgan,  as  I  said,  seems  to  have 
known  nothing.  The  number  of  classes,  according  to 
Heinrich  Cunow  in  "Die  Verwandtschafts-Organisa- 
tionen  der  Australneger"  is  three  and  no  one  is  allowed 
to  marry  out  of  his  or  her  own  age-class.  All  those  be- 
longing to  one  age-class  call  each  other  brothers  and 
sisters,  although  only  few  of  them  are  such;  but  from 
this  fact  it  appears  to  the  unknowing  as  if  marriage  be- 
tween brothers  and  sisters  were  the  rule,  although  this 
is  strictly  prevented  by  the  institution  of  the  marriage- 
class  and  the  prohibition  to  marry  within  the  gens.  From 
birth  to  the  period  of  puberty  the  Australian  belongs  to 
the  first  class,  that  of  children.  When  puberty  arrives, 
and  after  having  gone  through  certain  ceremonies,  the 
Australian  becomes  a  "young  man,"  or  a  "young  wo- 
man" and  belongs  to  the  second  class,  the  name  of 
which  signifies  young  man  or  young  woman.  They  can 
now  marry,  and  belong  to  this  class  until  the  oldest  of 
their  children  enters  it,  and  then  they  become  "old  men," 
or  "old  women" ;  that  is  what  the  name  of  the  third  class 


42  LOOKING  FORWARD 

signifies.  The  name  of  his  age-class  is  borne  by  the 
Australian  beside  the  name  of  his  gens  and  that  of  his 
marriage-class,  so  that  an  Australian  has  three  names, 
each  one  standing  in  some  relation  to  the  marriage 
rights.  His  age,  according  to  the  number  of  years  he 
has  lived,  is  unknown  to  the  Australian. 

The  designations  of  relationship  are  taken  from  the 
division  into  age-classes,  and  as  the  members  of  each 
class  call  each  other  brothers  and  sisters,  and  marriage 
being  allowed  only  within  the  age-class,  the  same  system 
of  consanguinity  and  affinity  must  be  produced  which 
was  found  existing  in  Hawaii  and  from  which  Morgan 
constructed  the  consanguine  family,  namely  the  Malayan 
system  of  relationship.  It  may  be  that  the  consanguine 
family  nevertheless  existed  prior  to  the  division  into 
age-classes,  but  then  its  existence  would  not  be  proven 
by  the  Malayan  system  of  relationship,  but  merely  by  the 
conjecture  that  any  inhibition  proves  the  previous  exist- 
ence of  that  which  is  inhibited.  Of  course,  there  is  a 
possibility  that  the  age-classes  are  peculiar  to  the  Au- 
stralians and  existed  nowhere  else,  but  that  is  something 
which  we  do  not  know,  and  which,  probably,  will  never 
be  known. 

Although  marriages  between  members  of  different 
age-classes  are  strictly  forbidden,  yet  it  may  happen 
that  a  man  and  a  woman,  each  belonging  to  another  age- 
class  stand  to  each  other  in  the  relation  of  husband  and 
wife.  For  instance,  if  a  wife,  having  born  children, 
dies,  and  her  husband  marries  another.  As  soon  as  the 
oldest  of  his  children  enters  his,  the  second  class,  he  in 
turn  enters  the  third,  but  his  second  wife,  having  no 
child  old  enough  to  enter  the  second  class,  does  not 
with  her  husband  enter  the  third  class,  but  remains  in 


INTRODUCTION  43 

the  second.  Now,  all  the  members  of  a  class  always 
call  all  those  of  the  class  immediately  above  father  and 
mother,  and  they  in  turn  call  those  of  the  class  below 
sons  and  daughters.  All  the  members  of  the  first  class 
call  all  the  members  of  the  third  grandfathers  or  grand- 
mothers, and  the  latter  in  turn  call  the  others  grand- 
sons or  granddaughters. 

In  the  case  just  mentioned,  the  husband  would  be- 
long to  the  class  of  grandfathers,  but  the  wife  to  the 
class  of  mothers,  and  so  it  may  happen  that  one  not  ac- 
quainted with  their  institutions,  may  believe  that  marri- 
age is  possible  between  parent  and  child.  Perhaps,  the 
ancient  Britons  had  a  similar  institution,  and  it  was  a 
case  of  this  kind  which  caused  Caesar  to  say  of  them 
that  parents  married  their  own  children. 

The  study  of  the  customs  and  usages  of  savages  is 
a  matter  of  exceeding  difficulty,  and  so  it  happened  that 
when  missionaries  first  came  into  contact  with  savages 
or  barbarians,  they  were  appalled  by  what  they  thought 
to  be  the  sum  of  human  degradation.  They  were 
shocked  by  what  they  saw  in  reference  to  the  relation 
of  the  sexes,  because  they  did  not  understand  it.  Yet, 
those  people  acted  according  to  their  moral  sense  and 
observed  their  customs  and  usages  perhaps  more  faith- 
fully than  we  observe  ours.  Unfaithfulness  of  a  hus- 
band or  wife  among  the  Australians  is  a  small  private 
affair,  but  if  cohabitation  should  be  had  between  a  man 
and  a  woman,  belonging  to  a  gens  within  which  mar- 
riage is  forbidden  or  between  a  man  and  a  woman  be- 
longing to  different  classes,  between  which  marriage  is 
forbidden,  they  would  be,  if,  perhaps,  not  killed,  at  least 
mercilessly  banished  from  their  horde,  which  would  be 
sure  death.  In  their  own  minds  these  people  are  quite 


44  LOOKING  FORWARD 

as  respectable  and  modest  as  we  are  in  ours.  Their  in- 
stitutions were  not  understood  by  the  strangers  who 
only  saw  chaos  and  immorality  where  everything  was 
strictly  regulated  and  regulations  were  strictly  observed. 

In  "the  evolution  of  woman,"  the  author  Eliza  Gam- 
ble, says :  "The  following  fact,  however,  in  regard  to 
these  races  has  been  observed:  the  more  primitive  they 
are,  or  the  less  they  have  come  in  contact  with  civili- 
zation, the  more  strictly  do  they  observe  the  rules  which 
have  been  established  for  the  government  of  the  sexual 
relations." 

"The  men  who,  with  Captain  Cook,  first  visited  the 
Sandwich  Islands,  reported  the  natives  as  modest  and 
chaste  in  their  habits;  but  later,  after  coming  in  contact 
with  the  influence  of  civilization,  modesty  and  chastity 
among  them  were  virtues  almost  entirely  unknown." 

Indeed,  there  is  abundant  evidence  that  wherever 
primitive  races  came  in  touch  with  civilization,  they 
were  ruined  physically  and  morally. 

But  to  return  to  the  age-classes  of  the  Australians 
and  considering  Morgan's  assertion  that  the  uncertainty 
of  paternity  produced  the  change  in  the  form  of  family, 
it  becomes  clear  that  Morgan's  hypothesis  is  of  doubtful 
value.  For  in  the  case  of  the  Australians  the  knowl- 
edge of  paternity  is  a  part  of  their  system.  How  could 
a  man  be  transferred  from  the  second  class  into  the 
third  at  the  time  of  the  puberty  of  his  oldest  child, 
unless  he  knew  his  child?  Shall  we  presume  that  the 
institutions  of  the  Australians  are  peculiar  to  them,  and 
are  we  compelled  to  abandon  the  theory  that  like  causes 
produce  like  effects  and  that  the  same  degree  of  civili- 
zation always  and  everywhere  produced  similar  institu- 
tions? Besides,  marriage  among  the  Australians  and 


INTRODUCTION  45 

Polynesians  is  generally  in  single  pairs,  although  they 
stand  upon  such  a  low  degree  of  civilization  that  even 
if  we  presume  the  earlier  existence  of  the  consanguine 
group-marriage  by  mere  reasoning  from  inhibitions,  the 
changes  can  not  possibly  have  been  produced  by  the 
desire  of  passing  property  down  to  own  children,  for 
they  have  not  yet  attained  to  the  accumulation  of  prop- 
erty of  any  kind  or  quantity. 

True,  their  family  is  not  yet  monogamous,  and 
although  knowledge  of  paternity  is  a  part  of  their  sys- 
tem, yet,  paternity  is  not  infrequently  uncertain.  For 
(and  this  may  be  a  relic  of  a  former  group  marriage) 
the  older  brother  very  often  permits  cohabitation  of  his 
younger  brothers  with  his  wife,  for  which  he  acquires 
the  right  in  case  his  younger  brothers  should  marry,  to 
cohabit  with  their  wives,  and  I  presume  that  even  in 
such  case  he  considers  the  children  of  his  wife  his  own 
children.  Yet,  as  a  general  rule,  fathers  know  their 
own  children,  and  it  is  quite  doubtful  whether  uncer- 
tainty of  paternity  was  ever  sufficiently  general  that  it 
could  have  produced  a  new  form  of  the  family.  The 
Dieyerie  tribe  has  a  form  of  marriage  which  comes  quite 
near  the  Punaluan  family,  only  that  what  the  Hawaiian 
called  Punalua,  the  Dieyerie  calls  Pirauru.  It  seems  to 
be  practically  a  marriage  in  groups,  making  certainty  of 
paternity  impossible,  but  it  may  be  that  also  this  form 
of  marriage  is  not  yet  perfectly  understood. 

The  reasons  for  such  far-reaching  changes,  as  that 
of  descent  in  paternal  line  for  descent  in  maternal  line 
and  for  eliminating  that  status  of  woman  which  gave 
her  whole  power  in  the  communal  household  and  im- 
mense influence  in  the  government  of  the  tribe,  so  much 
so  that  ethnologists  express  the  opinion  that  at  a  time 


46  LOOKING  FORWARD 

a  system  of  gynecocracy  was  of  general  prevalence,  as 
well  as  the  reason  for  the  gradual  establishment  of 
monogamy,  must  have  been  principally  of  an  economic 
nature.  The  sentimental  reason  sprang  up  afterwards 
and  added  force  to  the  economic  reason,  particularly  in 
maintaining  the  new  institution.  We  shall  learn  more 
about  this,  as  we  proceed. 

The  errors  into  which  Mr.  Morgan  has  probably 
fallen,  need  not  concern  us  any  further.  They  are  not 
sufficient  to  overthrow  his  general  theories,  and  it  is 
not  the  object  of  this  book  to  solve  ethnological  prob- 
lems. It  is  sufficient  for  our  purposes  to  know  that, 
even  in  the  earliest  stages  of  civilization,  there  was 
neither  chaos  nor  anarchy  in  the  social  or  sexual  rela- 
tions of  man,  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  they  were,  at 
all  times,  regulated  by  system,  order  and  law.  Nor  do 
Mr.  Morgan's  errors  detract  from  his  merits  as  a  path- 
finder. As  yet  it  has  never  happened  that  a  scientific 
truth  was  perfectly  and  completely  evolved  by  its  first 
discoverer.  What  I  intended  to  demonstrate,  what  is  of 
importance  for  us  to  know,  and  what  I  wish  further  to 
show,  is: 

First,  that  human  society  is  a  living  organism. 

Second,  that  its  beginning  dates  back  perhaps,  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  of  years,  into  the  dim  ages  of  lowest 
savagery. 

Third,  that  the  different  institutions  of  human  soci- 
ety are  interdependent  on  each  other,  have  either  grown 
together,  or  stand  to  each  other  in  the  relation  of  cause 
and  effect,  and  that  none  of  them  can  be  fully  under- 
stood without  knowing  them  all. 

Fourth,  that  human  institutions  cannot  in  their 
nature  be  permanent,  that  they  were  from  their  begin- 


INTRODUCTION  47 

ning,  and  still  are,  subject  to  a  continous  process  of  evo- 
lution, changing  their  forms  and  modes  of  procedure, 
and  even  going  and  coming,  according  to  the  necessities 
of  the  human  race. 

Fifth,  that,  because  the  prime  necessity  of  animated 
beings  is  and  ever  must  have  been,  the  means  to  sup- 
port physical  life,  and  because  the  first  mental  efforts 
of  man  must  have  been  directed  toward  gaining  the 
necessaries  of  life  from  physical  nature,  and  considering 
the  term  necessaries  of  life  as  changing  its  import  with 
growing  civilization,  the  efforts  of  gaining  the  means 
of  subsistence  became  the  power,  controlling  the  human 
intellect. 

Gradually  and  slowly  the  human  intellect  gained  a 
knowledge  of  nature  and  its  forces,  which,  of  course, 
had  an  earlier  existence  than  he.  Man,  never  living 
singly,  and  by  nature  endowed  with  social  instincts, 
learned  the  advantages  of  organization.  He  used  both 
toward  the  betterment  of  his  condition.  This  grew  bet- 
ter, as  the  procurement  of  the  necessaries  of  life  became 
easier.  He  shaped  his  organizations  and  his  rules  of 
conduct  with  a  view  toward  his  economic  welfare,  and 
the  manner  of  producing  and  acquiring  the  necessaries 
of  life,  using  the  word  in  its  broadest  significance, 
became  the  causa  causans,  the  fountain  cause,  of  all 
human  action  and  all  human  institutions. 


II. 

THE  STATUS  OF  WOMAN. 

/ 

The  orthodox  Hebrews  have  an  ancient  prayer    in 

which  men  thank  God  for  not  having  created  them 
women,  and  the  women  thank  him  for  having  them  cre- 
ated according  to  his  pleasure.  This  prayer  is  signifi- 
cant of  the  status  of  woman  since  the  beginning  of  civil- 
ization, up  to  a  comparatively  short  time  ago.  There 
was,  perhaps,  no  time  in  the  history  of  the  human  race, 
in  which  the  condition  of  women  was  more  inferior, 
more  degraded  than  in  the  beginning  of  the  Christian 
era.  According  to  the  doctrines  of  the  fathers  of  the 
Church,  the  woman  was  an  unclean  creature,  the  tempt- 
ress who  brought  sin  into  this  world,  from  whom  it  was 
considered  good  and  holy  to  keep  away.  Did  they  not 
find  proof  of  it  in  the  holy  scriptures?  Was  not  man 
first  tempted  by  woman  ?  Did  not  God  himself  command 
that  man  shall  be  the  lord  of  woman?  If  there  are  any 
books  in  existence,  the  authors  of  which  held  women 
more  in  contempt  than  the  authors  of  the  biblical  scrip- 
tures and  the  writings  of  the  fathers  of  the  Church,  I 
do  not  know  of  them.  I  may  say  without  fear  of  con- 
tradiction, that  most  of  what  is  said  about  women  in 
these  ancient  books  is  revolting  to  our  sense  of  justice, 
decency  and  morality.  I  shall  not  indulge  much  in  quot- 
ing, because,  it  is  all  too  indelicate,  and  leave  it  to  the 
reader  to  inform  himself.  If  nature  and  social  condi- 
tions had  not  been  stronger  forces  than  the  zelotism  of 

48 


THE    STATUS    OF    WOMAN  49 

the  fathers  of  the  Qiurch,  such  a  thing  as  the  family 
would  not  exist  to-day  among  Christian  nations.  "Mar- 
riage," said  Hieronymus,  "is  always  vicious,  wheretore 
nothing  can  be  done  but  to  excuse  it  and  to  sanctify  it." 
According  to  the  views  of  those  men,  nothing  could 
please  God  more  than  celibacy  and  sexual  abstinence, 
which  according  to  our  modern  view  would  be  a  gross 
insult  to  nature.  I  am  sure  that  I  make  no  mistake,  if 
I  state  that  at  no  time  and  nowhere,  even  among  savages 
and  barbarians,  the  position  of  women  was,  compared 
with  that  of  men,  more  inferior  than  in  the  Roman 
empire  about  twenty  centuries  ago.  Rights  they  had 
none  and  the  woman  was  under  tutelage  all  her  life. 
She  was  born  as  the  property  of  her  father,  and  became 
by  marriage  the  property  of  her  husband.  The  Roman 
law,  however,  became  the  model  law  for  all  continental 
Europe.  The  common  law  of  England  which,  gener- 
ally, followed  its  own  course,  independent  of  the  Roman 
law,  was,  nevertheless,  not  much  more  favorable  to 
women. 

According  to  the  common  law,  husband  and  wife 
become  by  marriage  one  person  in  law.  "That  is,"  says 
Blackstone  in  his  commentaries,  "the  very  being  or 
legal  existence  of  the  woman  is  suspended  during  the 
marriage,  or  at  least  is  incorporated  and  consolidated 
into  that  of  the  husband,  under  whose  wing,  protection, 
and  cover,  she  performs  everything."  In  other  words, 
husband  and  wife  became  one  person,  but  that  one  per- 
son was  the  husband.  "But  though,"  says  Blackstone 
further,  "our  law  in  general  considers  man  and  wife  as 
one  person,  yet,  there  are  some  instances  in  which  she 
is  separately  considered,  as  inferior  to  him,  and  acting 
by  his  compulsion.  And  therefore  all  deeds  executed, 


50  LOOKING  FORWARD 

and  acts  done  by  her,  during  her  coverture,  are  void." 
That  is  to  say  that,  in  the  state  of  marriage,  the  woman 
had  almost  no  existence  at  all,  so  far  as  rights  were 
concerned.  Yet,  for  other  purposes,  she  had  a  well  de- 
fined existence.  For,  as  we  further  read  in  Blackstone, 
the  husband,  by  the  old  law,  might  give  his  wife  mod- 
erate correction.  "As  he  is  to  answer  for  her  misbe- 
havior, the  law  thought  it  reasonable  to  intrust  him  with 
this  power  of  restraining  her  by  domestic  chastisement, 
in  the  same  moderation  that  a  man  is  allowed  to  correct 
his  apprentices  or  children,  for  whom  the  master  or  par- 
ent is  also  liable  in  some  cases  to  answer."  The  ground 
upon  which  this  right  of  correction  rested,  is  certainly 
interesting,  for  the  responsibility  of  the  husband  for  the 
misbehavior  of  the  wife  is  no  other  but  a  pecuniary  one. 
After  stating  that  under  the  civil  law  the  husband  had 
the  right  to  whip  his  wife,  Blackstone  continues :  "But 
with  us,  in  the  politer  reign  of  Charles  the  Second,  this 
power  of  correction  began  to  be  doubted;  and  a  wife 
may  now  have  security  of  the  peace  against  her  hus- 
band; or,  in  return,  a  husband  against  his  wife.  Yet, 
the  lower  rank  of  people,  who  were  always  fond  of  the 
old  common  law,  still  claim  and  exert  their  ancient  priv- 
^  ilege,  and  the  courts  of  law  will  still  permit  a  husband 
to  restrain  a  wife  of  her  liberty,  in  case  of  any  gross 
misbehavior." 

Far  up  into  the  period  of  civilization  the  husband 
had  the  privilege  of  committing  adultery  at  pleasure, 
and  the  right  to  kill  his  adulterous  wife.  More  than 
that  the  savage  and  barbarian  could  not  do  either.  But 
the  savage  hardly  ever  did  it,  while  it  is  questionable 
whether,  even  to  this  day,  a  French  or  an  American 


THE    STATUS    OF    WOMAN  51 

jury  ever  punished  a  husband  for  killing  his  wife  when 
he;  caught  her  in  adultery. 

Very  far  up  into  the  period  of  civilization,  in  Greece 
and  Rome,  the  father  gave  his  daughter  away  in  mar- 
riage, whether  she  consented  or  not.  What  more  could 
the  savage  do  in  this  respect?  Bfat  it  never  was,  nor 
is  it  customary  among  savages  for  parents  to  compel 
their  daughters  to  marry  contrary  to  their  will. 

It  may  be  stated,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  with  the 
beginning  of  civilization,  the  condition  of  women  grew 
worse,  and  that  woman  was  not  as  free  and  independent 
as  in  the  period  of  savagery.  Her  condition  began  to 
improve  only  very  late  in  the  period  of  civilization. 

It  is,  by  the  way,  quite  significant  that  most  of  our 
modern  languages  have  no  word  to  designate  the  human 
species  and  for  this  purpose  use  the  word  by  which  the 
male  is  designated.  "Man"  may  mean  the  human  spe- 
cies or  a  male  person ;  one  has  to  gather  its  sense  from 
the  context.  So  it  is  with  the  French  "homme,"  or  the 
Italian  "uomo,"  so  it  is  in  many  other  languages.  Even 
in  German,  which  language  has  a  separate  word  for  the 
designation  of  the  species,  its  gender  is  masculine.  The 
word  "Mensch"  can  never  be  used  in  the  feminine. 
If  used,  however,  in  the  neuter  gender,  it  is  a  vulgar 
expression,  meaning  a  lewd  woman. 

Not  unfrequently  it  is  attempted  to  prove  the  inferior 
position  of  women  in  ancient  times,  or  even  in  our  times 
among  savages  and  barbarians,  by  the  fact  that  the 
father  sold  or  sells  his  daughter  to  her  husband.  The 
father  was,  or  is  paid  in  cattle  or  other  things,  or  in 
service.  An  instance  of  the  latter  is  to  be  found  in  the 
Pentateuch  in  the  story  of  Jacob,  Rachel  and  Leah.  Be- 
fore, here,  discussing  this  point  any  farther,  I  deem  it 


52  LOOKING  FORWARD 

proper  to  call  attention  to  the  still  prevailing  custom, 
but  more  prevailing  in  Europe  than  in  this  country,  of 
giving  the  daughter  a  dowry,  which  in  most  cases  be- 
comes the  property  of  the  husband.  I  find  it  difficult  to 
determine  whether  this  is  not  as  much  a  purchase  of 
the  husband,  as  the  giving  of  something  to  the  father 
of  the  bride  is  the  purchase  of  the  daughter.  The  only 
material  difference  which  I  can  see  is,  that  in  the  one 
case  the  valuable  object  of  the  transaction  is  the  man, 
while  in  the  other  it  is  the  woman.  And  this  is  really 
significant  of  the  social  position  of  woman;  for  we  will 
find,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  where  the  father  receives 
something  for  his  daughter,  the  woman  is  considered  to 
have  an  economic  value,  to  be  practically  useful  to  the 
household,  and,  in  consequence  thereof,  has  a  superior 
position  within  the  same. 

Bachofen,  as  stated  before,  showed  from  history, 
legends,  myths,  customs  and  usages  that  there  muse  have 
been  once  a  period  of  gynecocracy  or  matriarchate.  A 
description  of  the  conditions  prevailing  among  the  most 
advanced  Indian  tribes  on  the  North  American  conti- 
nent a  hundred  years  ago,  and  later  still,  furnishes  a 
picture  of  what  the  matriarchate  probably  was  among 
other  barbarians. 

The  Hurons  and  Iroquois  lived  in  so-called  long- 
houses.  Such  a  house  was  inhabited  by  from  eight  to 
twenty  single  families,  who  all  of  them  claimed  to  be 
the  descendants  of  the  same  female  ancestor.  The  old- 
est woman  in  the  house  directed  its  affairs.  Using  the 
word  lodge  for  one  of  the  large  families,  consisting  of 
a  number  of  single  families,  from  ten  to  fifteen  lodges 
formed  a  totem-group  or  gens,  and  from  eight  to  twelve 
of  these  groups  formed  the  tribe.  So  we  are  informed 


THE    STATUS    OF    WOMAN  53 

by  Father  Gabriel  Sagard  Theodat    in    his    book  "Le 

grand  voyage  du  pays  des  Hurons,"  published  in  1632. 
J.  W.  Powell  in  his  "Wyandot  Government,"  First  an- 
nual report  of  the  Bureau  of  Ethnology,  informs  us  as 
follows:  The  land  belonged  to  the  tribe.  The  council 
of  chiefs  divided  the  land  between  the  gentes  or  totem- 
groups  according  to  the  numbers  of  individuals  in  them. 
Each1  totem-group  then  divided  its  allotment  between  the 
lodges.  From  time  to  time,  among  the  Hurons  every 
two  years,  a  redivision  took  place.  The  fields  were 
fenced  in  and  the  parcels  of  the  several  lodges  were 
designated  by  some  kind  of  marks. 

It  should  be  noted  here  that  the  division  of  the  land 
among  the  ancient  Hebrews  must  have  been  quite  sim- 
ilar. In  Numbers  26  v.  51-56  we  read:  "These  were 
the  number  of  the  children  of  Israel,  six  hundred  thous- 
and and  a  thousand  seven  hundred  and  thirty.  Unto 
these  the  land  shall  be  divided  for  an  inheritance  accord- 
ing to  the  number  of  names."  (We  have  noticed  already 
the  smallness  of  the  number  of  names.)  "To  many 
thou  shalt  give  the  more  inheritance,  and  to  few  thou 
shalt  give  the  less  inheritance,  to  every  one  shall  his  in- 
heritance be  according  to  those  that  were  numbered  of 
him."  This  clearly  proves  a  division  of  the  land  be- 
tween bodies  of  men  according  to  their  numerical 
strength.  But  the  Hebrews  had  at  that  time  already 
established  descent  in  the  male  line. 

Quite  a  similar  arrangement  is  reported  to  us  as 
having  prevailed  among  the  Germans  at  the  beginning 
of  the  Christian  era.  At  that  time  they,  also,  had  al- 
ready substituted  descent  in  the  male  line  for  descent 
in  the  female  line. 

But  to  return  to  the  Hurons:  the  work  on  the  fields 


54  LOOKING  FORWARD 

was  performed  exclusively  by  women,  the  men  assisted 
only  in  clearing  land.  In  consequence  thereof  only  the 
women  possessed  the  right  of  usufruction.  The  women 
directed  the  use  of  the  land  and  its  products.  They  also 
directed  the  affairs  of  the  household,  raised  the  children 
and  made  the  clothing  and  the  household  utensils.  The 
men  provided  the  class  of  food  obtainable  by  fishing  and 
hunting,  built  canoes,  manufactured  their  weapons  and 
hunting  utensils  and  fought  their  battles. 

Marriages  were  always  arranged  by  the  mothers  or 
the  female  chiefs  of  the  household.  The  husband  did 
not  move  into  the  house  of  his  wife  nor  she  into  his. 
He  continued  to  live  in  the  household  of  his  mother  and 
staid  only  temporarily  with  his  wife.  If  he  wished  to 
remain  in  her  favor  he  had  to  give  her  regularly  a  share 
of  the  fruits  of  his  hunting  expeditions.  If  the  two 
could  not  agree,  they  were  always  at  liberty  to  separate. 
So  we  are  told  by  J.  F.  Lafitau  in  his  "Moeurs  des  sau- 
vages  ameriquains."  The  husband  had  no  claim  on  the 
property  of  his  wife  or  on  his  children.  They  belonged 
to  the  family  of  the  mother.  As  her  property  was 
generally  of  a  kind  for  which  a  man  had  no  use,  it  went 
after  her  death  to  her  daughters  or  sisters.  If  a  man 
died,  his  property  did  not  go  to  his  own  sons,  but  to  the 
sons  of  his  sister;  if  there  were  none,  then  to  his 
brothers. 

Under  such  conditions,  the  women  having  complete 
control  over  the  fruits  of  their  labor  and  the  necessaries 
of  life,  and  also  having  complete  power  in  the  house- 
hold, they  exercised  superior  influence  on  tribal  affairs. 
Among  the  Iroquois  they  took  part  in  the  general  coun- 
cils; they  were,  as  Lafitau  reports,  the  real  authority, 
the  soul  of  the  council;  they  dictated  peace  or  war,  ar- 


THE    STATUS    OF    WOMAN  55 

ranged  marriages,  had  control  over  the  children  and  de- 
termined the  manner  of  descent.  Among  the  Wyandots 
they  had  the  power  of  appointing  the  chiefs.  Their 
council  of  chiefs  consisted  of  forty-four  women  and 
eleven  men,  each  of  their  eleven  totem-groups  being  rep- 
resented by  four  women  and  one  man. 

This  was  the  most  developed  matriarchate  of  which 
ethnological  researches  give  us  knowledge,  although 
similar  institutions  prevailed  among  other  American 
tribes  and,  also,  among  the  Malayans.  However,  among 
the  latter,  it  is  customary  that  the  new  husband  moves 
into  the  family  of  his  wife;  it  seldom  occurs  that  the 
wife  goes  with  her  husband  to  his  kindred. 

According  to  Rev.  Ashur  Wright  this  custom  seems 
to  have  prevailed  also  among  some  of  the  Indian  tribes. 
Wright,  for  many  years  a  missionary  among  the  Sene- 
cas  wrote,  in  1873,  to  Morgan  in  reference  to  their  fam- 
ily system,  when  occupying  the  old  long-houses,  as  fol- 
lows :  "It  is  possible  that  some  one  clan  predominated, 
the  women  taking  in  husbands,  however,  from  the  other 
clans;  and  sometimes  for  a  novelty,  some  of  their  sons 
bringing  in  their  young  wives,  until  they  felt  brave 
enough  to  leave  their  mothers.  Usually,  the  female  por- 
tion ruled  the  house,  and  were  doubtless  clannish  enough 
about  it.  The  stores  were  in  common;  but  woe  to  the 
luckless  husband  or  lover  who  was  too  shiftless  to  do 
his  share  of  the  providing.  No  matter,  how  many  chil- 
dren, or  whatever  goods  he  might  have  in  the  house,  he 
might  at  any  time  be  ordered  to  pick  up  his  blanket  and 
budge;  and  after  such  orders  it  would  not  be  healthful 
for  him  to  attempt  to  disobey.  The  house  would  be  too 
hot  for  him,  and  unless  saved  by  the  intercession  of 
some  aunt  or  grandmother,  he  must  retreat  to  his  own 


66  lyOOKING  FORWARD 

clan;  or,  as  was  often  done,  go  and  start  a  new  matri- 
monial alliance  in  some  other.  The  women  were  the 
great  power  among  the  clans,  as  everywhere  else.  They 
did  not  hesitate,  when  occasion  required,  "to  knock  off 
the  horn,"  as  it  was  technically  called,  from  the  head  of 
a  chief,  and  send  him  back  to  the  ranks  of  the  warriors. 
The  original  nomination  of  the  chiefs  also  always  rested 
with  them." 

In  William  Alexander's  History  of  Women  I  find  the 
following :  "At  what  period  or  by  whom  the  laws  of  the 
Egyptians  were  first  promulgated,  is  uncertain,  but  if 
what  has  been  asserted  by  some  ancient  authors  be  true, 
that  the  men,  in  their  marriage  contracts,  promised 
obedience  to  their  wives,  (Mr.  Alexander  had  it,  prob- 
ably, from  "Egypt,"  Diodorus,  Book  I),  we  may  sup- 
pose .  that  the  women  had  no  inconsiderable  share  in 
legislation,  otherwise  they  could  hardly  have  obtained  so 
singular  a  privilege.  But  singular  as  this  privilege  may 
appear,  it  is  yet  exceeded  by  the  power  of  wives  in  the 
Marian  Islands ;  there  a  wife  is  absolutely  mistress  in 
the  house,  not  the  smallest  article  of  which  can  the  hus- 
band dispose  of  without  her  permission;  and  if  he 
proves  ill  humored,  obstinate  or  irregular  in  his  conduct, 
the  wife  either  corrects,  or-  leaves  him  altogether,  car- 
rying all  her  movables,  property  and  children  along  with 
her.  Should  a  husband  surprise  his  wife  in  adultery,  he 
may  kill  her  gallant,  but  by  no  means  must  use  her  ill. 
But  should  a  wife  detect  her  husband  in  the  same  crime, 
they  may  condemn  him  to  what  punishment  she  pleases, 
and  to  execute  her  vengeance,  she  assembles  all  the 
women  in  the  neighborhood,  who,  armed  with  lances, 
march  to  the  house  of  the  culprit,  destroy  his  grains"  etc. 
In  the  island  of  Formosa  daughters  are  regarded 


THE    STATUS    OF    WOMAN  57 

more  highly  than  sons,  because  as  soon  as  a  woman  is 
married,  contrary  to  the  customs  of  other  countries,  she 
brings  her  husband  home  with  her  to  her  father's  house, 
and  he  becomes  one  of  the  family,  so  that  parents  derive 
support  and  family-strength  from  the  marriage  of  a 
daughter. 

From  the  Grecians  it  is  known  that  in  the  earlier  ages 
women  were  alowed  to  vote  in  the  public  assemblies,  a 
privilege  which  was  afterwards  taken  from  them. 

The  Gauls  admitted  the  women  to  their  councils, 
when  peace  or  war  was  to  be  debated;  and  such  dif- 
ferences as  arose  between  them  and  their  allies  were 
terminated  by  female  negotiation;  as  a  confirmation  of 
this  we  find  it  stipulated  in  their  treaty  with  Hannibal, 
that  should  the  Gauls  have  any  complant  against  the 
Carthagenians,  the  matter  should  be  settled  by  the  Car- 
thagenian  general;  but  should  the  Carthagenians  have 
any  complaint  against  the  Gauls,  it  should  be  referred 
to  the  Gallic  women. 

A  confirmation  of  what  Alexander  says  in  reference 
to  the  women  of  the  Marian  Islands  can  be  found  in  Le 
Freycinet's  "Voyage  autour  du  monde." 

From  J.  Kubary  "The  social  institutions  of  the  Pe- 
lewans"  we  learn  that  on  the  Pelew  Islands  the  most 
and  hardest  labor  on  the  fields  is  performed  by  the 
women,  that  each  clan  has  two  chiefs,  a  male  and  a 
female  one,  and  that  the  village-government  is  in  the 
hands  of  all  the  chiefs.  In  case  of  marriage  the  husband 
moves  into  the  family  of  his  wife. 

Like  the  women  in  the  Pelew  Islands,  those  in  the 
Marian  Islands  perform  most  of  the  field  labor. 

The  same  custom  prevails  among  many  New  Zealand- 
ers.  Upon  the  other  hand,  on  the  Viti  Islands,  accord- 


58  LOOKING   FORWARD 

ing  to  Williams  and  Culvert  in  "Fiji  and  the  Fijians," 
all  the  field-work  is  done  by  the  men,  and  the  position 
of  the  women  is  very  low;  they  are  cruelly  treated  by 
their  husbands  and  are  absolutely  their  property. 

On  the  Tonga  Islands  women  do  not  participate  in 
field  labor  at  all;  they  have  no  rights  whatever,  being 
only  little  better  treated  than  those  on  the  Viti  Islands. 
According  to  W.  Mariner  in  "Account  of  the  natives  of 
the  Tonga  Islands"  husbands  cast  off  their  wives  at  their 
pleasure,  and  if  a  chief  dies,  some  of  his  wives  are 
choked  to  death. 

According  to  R.  H.  Codrington  in  "Social  regulation 
in  Melanesia"  the  women  of  the  Solomon  Islands  per- 
form most  of  the  agricultural  labor,  and  Rev.  G.  Turner 
in  his  "Samoa  a  hundred  years  ago  and  long  before" 
tells  us  that  the  women  are  treated  better  than  is  usual 
in  heathenish  tribes. 

Livingstone  in  his  "Missionary  travels  and  researches 
in  Southern  Africa"  speaks  of  the  Bolonda,  a  negro 
tribe  living  on  the  Zambesi  river.  They  pursue  agri- 
culture. Women  take  part  in  councils.  When  they 
marry,  the  husband  must  remove  to  the  village  of  the 
wife.  When  they  separate,  the  children  remain  with 
the  mother.  The  wife  must  provide  the  husband  with 
food.  If  he  offends  his  wife,  she  punishes  him  by  giv- 
ing him  nothing  to  eat,  and  no  other  woman  gives  him 
anything. 

What  fools  these  heathens  and  savages  are!  They 
actually  do  respect  labor,  while  we,  Christians  and  civil- 
ized men,  bombastically  profess  the  respectability  of 
labor,  but  respect  those  least  who  perform  the  most  and 
hardest  labor,  and  bow  deepest  before  those  who  do  not 
work  at  all. 


THE    STATUS    OF    WOMAN  59 

A  full  understanding  of  the  customs  and  social  insti- 
tutions of  savages  and  barbarians  shows  how  wrong  the 
prevailing  opinions  in  reference  to  them  are.  "As 
strength  and  power  are  in  savage  life,"  reasons  Mr. 
Alexander  in  his  aforementioned  book,  "the  only  means 
of  attaining  to  power  and  distinction,  so  weakness  and 
timidity  are  the  certain  paths  to  slavery  and  oppression. 
On  this  account  we  shall  almost  constantly  find  women 
among  savages  condemned  to  every  species  of  servile  or 
rather  of  slavish  drudgery,  and  shall  as  constantly  find 
them  emerging  from  this  state  in  the  same  proportion  as 
we  find  the  men  emerging  from  ignorance  and  brutality ; 
the  rank  therefore  and  condition,  in  which  we  find 
women  in  one  country,  mark  out  to  us  with  the  greatest 
precision  the  exact  point  in  the  scale  of  civil  society  to 
which  the  people  of  such  country  have  attained;  and 
were  their  history  entirely  silent  on  every  other  subject, 
and  only  mentioned  the  manner  in  which  they  treated 
their  women,  we  would  from  thence  be  enabled  to  form 
a  tolerable  judgment  of  the  barbarity,  or  culture  of  their 

manners."     He  further  says :    "In  savage  life 

women  have  hardly  any  mental  qualifications;  nursed  in 
dirt  and  slovenliness,  with  but  little  ornament,  and  still 
less  art  in  arranging  it ;  burned  with  the  sun  and  bedau- 
bed with  grease,  they  excite  disgust  rather  than  desire; 
hence  they  are  not  so  much  the  objects  of  love  as  of 
animal  appetite;  are  seldom  admitted  to  any  distinguish- 
ing rank,  and  as  seldom  exempted  from  any  distinguish- 
ing slavery  They  ....  the  women  are  by  him 

(the  man)  destined  to  perform  every  mean  and  servile 
office,  a  fate  which  constantly  attends  the  weak,  where 
power  and  not  reason  dictates  the  law." 

Speaking    of    the    influence    of    women    among    the 


60  LOOKING  FORWARD 

Hurons,  Iroquois  and  other  Indians,  he  says:  "This 
inconsistency  of  behavior,  more  or  less  takes  place  in 
all  nations,  and  is  an  incontestable  proof  that  manners 
and  customs  are  everywhere  more  the  offspring  of 
chance  than  of  systematic  arrangement." 

The  superficiality  of  this  reasoning  is  astounding, 
especially  as  coming  from  the  author  of  such  an  inter- 
esting book  as  Mr.  Alexander's,  and'  I  made  these  quota- 
tions only,  because  they  are  typical  of  the  way  people 
generally  judge  of  these  things.  We  shall  soon  learn, 
however,  that  manners  and  customs  are  not  the  offspring 
of  chance,  that,  on  the  contrary,  there  is  system  -every- 
where, and  that  the  manner  of  providing  the  necessaries 
of  life  has  more  to  do  with  the  status  of  woman,  than 
her  physical  appearance  and  the  ignorance  and  brutality 
of  men.  If,  among  savages,  women  have  to  perform 
hard  labor,  such  labor  is  an  economic  necessity.  If  in 
the  wanderings  of  an  Australian  horde  the  women  carry 
the  babies  and  the  belongings,  they  do  it,  because  the 
men  cannot  do  these  things  and  hunt  for  food  at  the 
same  time.  If  among  Arabian  and  other  tribes  the 
custom  of  infanticide  prevailed,  it  was  on  account  of  a 
lack  of  food.  But  it  is  certainly  the  height  of  absurdity 
to  measure  the  beauty  of  savage  women  with  the  eye 
of  civilized  man,  and  to  assume  that  the  savage  man 
does  the  same,  and  that  he  does  it  with  the  aesthetic 
sentiment  of  civilization.  Presumably  savage  women 
would  not  bedaub  themselves  with  grease  without  the 
knowledge  of  thereby  pleasing  their  male  companions. 

I  might  considerably  increase  the  number  of  illustra- 
tions of  the  status  of  woman  prior  to  the  period  of  civi- 
lization, but  I  deem  the  foregoing  sufficient,  and  will, 
in  addition,  only  quote  from  Tacitus'  Germania  in  refer- 


THE    STATUS    OF    WOMAN  61 

ence  to  the  ancient  Germans:  "When  they  are  not  in 
war,  they  spend  their  time  hunting,  oftener  doing  noth- 
ing but  eat  and  sleep.  The  care  of  house  and  hearth 
and  of  the  fields  was  left  to  the  women,  the  aged,  that 

is,  the  weakest  of  the  family." "A  dowry  is  not 

brought  by  the  wife  to  the  husband,  but  by  the  husband 
to  the  wife" "The  fields  are  taken  by  the  com- 
munities according  to  the  number  of  the  tillers" 

"In  them  (noble  virgins)  they  see  something  holy  and 
prophetic,  and  for  this  reason  do  not  refuse  their  advice, 
and  leave  their  words  not  unobserved." 

No  trace  of  matriarchal  institutions  appears  among 
tribes  that  had  not  yet  attained  to  the  tilling  of  the  soil, 
were  not  domiciled  and  not  sufficiently  advanced  to  ac- 
cumulate some  property.  None  of  it  can  be  found 
among  pastoral  nations.  The  Australians  who  roam 
through  the  bush  in  hordes  and  oftener  suffer  hunger 
than  have  an  overplus  of  food,  treat  their  women  kindly, 
but  always  finding  it  difficult  to  obtain  a  suitable  wife 
within  the  horde  on  account  of  the  many  inhibitions 
spoken  of  before,  steal  or  exchange  women  for  the  pur- 
pose of  marriage,  and  the  wife  almost  invariably  fol- 
lows the  husband  into  his  horde. 

Matriarchal  institutions  seem  to  have  had  their  be- 
ginning toward  the  end  of  the  lower  status  of  barbarism 
and  to  disappear  sometime  in  the  middle  status,  per- 
haps late  in  that  status,  leaving  traces  of  their  existence 
behind.  It  is,  of  course,  not  to  be  presumed,  that  they 
disappeared  suddenly;  the  transformation  was  certainly 
slow  and  gradual.  Their  duration  in  years  we  do  not 
know,  it  may  have  been  hundreds  or  thousands.  Our 
historical  knowledge  does  not  go  behind  the  upper  status 
of  barbarism,  and  those  tribes,  of  whom  we  gained 


62  LOOKING  FORWARD 

knowledge  by  the  discovery  of  new  continents  did  not 
farther  develop  their  institutions  independently  and  free 
from  contact  with  civilization. 

The  economic  conditions  under  which  matriarchal 
institutions  prevailed  were  these:  Permanent  domicile 
of  the  tribe,  cultivation  of  the  soil  to  some  extent,  solely, 
or  principally,  by  women,  and  the  practice  of  hunting 
by  men,  also  the  manufacture  of  household  utensils  by 
women  exclusively,  and  the  possibility  of  accumulating 
some  property. 

Wherever  the  women  materially  assisted  in  the  pro- 
duction of  the  necessaries  of  life,  as  on  the  Pelew  Island, 
the  Marian  Islands  etc.  or  among  the  Hurons,  they  were 
well  treated  and  enjoyed  a  superior  position;  but  wher- 
ever they  contributed  nothing  material  toward  the  ne- 
cessary labor  for  subsistence,  as  on  the  Viti  or  the  Ton- 
ga Islands,  their  position  was  quite  inferior  and  they 
were  not  unfrequently  brutally  treated. 

With  domiciliation  or  localization  and  the  cultivation 
of  the  soil  the  possibility  of  a  more  rapid  increase  of 
population  was  given;  with  the  gradual  extension  of 
agriculture  and  raising  of  domesticated  animals,  hunting 
as  a  pursuit  for  obtaining  food  and  other  necessaries 
became  more  and  more  unnecessary;  with  the  improve- 
ment of  tools  and  the  growth  of  skill  the  quantity  of 
manufactured  things  increased,  and  exchange  of  them 
between  different  groups  or  tribes  sprang  up.  In  course 
of  time  the  making  provision  for  the  support  of  the 
family  became  the  exclusive  business  of  the  males,  while 
the  women  were  limited  to  household  work.  Contempo- 
raneously with  the  limitation  of  the  sphere  of  their  ac- 
tivity and  their  value  as  producers  of  the  necessaries  of 
life,  their  power  and  influence  waned.  It  was  altogether 


THE    STATUS    OF    WOMAN  63 

an  economic  process ,-  there  were  no  sentimental  reasons 
for  it.  Certainly,  sentiment  changed,  but  the  change  of 
sentiment  was  the  consequence  of  the  change  of  eco- 
nomic conditions.  Sentiment  is  never  an  original  cause, 
it  is  always  created  by  conditions;  but  after  its  creation 
it  may  become  a  powerful  factor  in  movements  toward 
a  transformation  of  conditions  that  have  become  op- 
pressive. The  Mosaic  law  commanded  the  return  of  the 
pawn,  for  money  borrowed,  on  the  evening  of  the  day 
on  which  it  was  given.  The  moneylender  of  to-day, 
even  if  he  be  an  orthodox  Hebrew,  would  ridicule  the 
idea.  We  live  under  different  economic  conditions  and 
our  sentiments  correspond  with  these  conditions.  Christ 
drove  the  money-changers  from  the  temple;  in  our  days 
the  banker  is  one  of  the  most  honored  and  respected 
personages.  Has  moral  sentiment  declined  with  civili- 
zation, or  was  moral  conception  of  a  higher  grade  two 
and  three  thousand  years  ago,  than  it  is  now?  I  am 
rather  inclined  to  believe  that  if  department  stores,  in- 
dustrial corporations  and  stock-exchanges  were  older 
than  the  Hebrew  law,  the  latter  would  have  been  dif- 
ferent from  what  is  was,  and  the  money-changers  would 
have  had  the  front  seats  in  the  temple. 

Up  to  modern  times  the  economic  conditions  not 
only  remained  unfavorable  to  women  but  grew  so  even 
more.  Century  after  century  passed,  but  women  re- 
mained without  power  and  influence,  at  least  among  the 
classes  who  shaped  legislation  and  institutions,  because 
the  economic  conditions  were  such  that  woman  was  not 
an  economic  factor  in  production. 

With  the  growth  of  property,  the  institution  of  slav- 
ery sprang  up.  Slavery  is  not  possible  where  the  power 
of  production  is  so  small  that  the  worker  cannot  produce 


64  BOOKING  FORWARD 

more  than  what  is  necessary  for  his  own  sustenance. 
Perhaps  it  sounds  paradoxical,  but  it  is  nevertheless 
true,  that  slavery,  as  well  as  the  subjugation  of  woman, 
was  the  result  of  advancing  civilization,  in  so  far,  at 
least,  as  this  advance  consisted  in  the  growth  of  the 
power  of  production.  I  am  firmly  of  the  opinion  that 
if  conditions  had  not  arisen  under  which  the  free  laborer 
became  a  better  producer  than  the  slave,  slavery  would 
still  be  an  existing  institution,  and  moral  feeling  and 
sentiment  would  sustain  it.  It  would  be  difficult  to 
prove,  if  possible  at  all,  that  the  ancient  Grecians  were 
inferior  to  us  in  humane  sentiment  and  moral  conscious- 
ness, at  least  in  the  classic  age,  yet  they  maintained  the 
institution  of  slavery.  It  was  defended  even  by  Aristotle, 
simply  because  it  was,  or  was  believed  to  be,  an  eco- 
nomic necessity.  At  the  same  time  they  had  little  respect 
for  women  and  much  less  for  their  wives.  I  do  not 
know  of  any  time  and  any  place,  when  and  where  slav- 
ery was  co-existent  with  a  superior  position  of  women. 
They  were  objects  of  physical  admiration,  or  objects  of 
sensual  or  even  soulful  admiration,  and  as  such  have 
wielded  great  influence  in  isolated  cases  by  cabals  and 
intrigues,  or  by  the  power  of  their  charms,  or  that  of 
genuine  affection;  their  beauty  and  graces  have  been 
permitted  to  adorn  the  home,  but  they  have  not  exer- 
cised any  general  power  or  influence  as  an  integral  part 
of  the  nation  or  the  community.  Socially  and  politically 
woman  was  held  inferior  to  man. 

Surely,  there  was  between  this  period  and  that  of 
the  matriarchate  no  difference  in  reference  to  the  attrac- 
tion of  the  sexes  toward  each  other.  It  is,  at  least,  not 
to  be  presumed  that  women  had  deteriorated  in  physical 
appearance  or  intellectual  impression,  nor  that  there  was 


THE    STATUS    OF    WOMAN  65 

any  change  in  the  forces  of  nature  which  could  have 
caused  such  a  difference.  It  also  can  hardly  be  main- 
tained that  the  introduction  of  slavery,  or  the  abrogation 
of  institutions  which  gave  woman  power  and  influence 
are  in  themselves  proof  of  higher  culture  and  greater  re- 
finement. Where  then  is  the  difference  between  the 
period  of  matriarchate  and  the  later  period  in  which 
slavery  prevailed,  and  the  power  and  influence  of  women 
were  gone?  It  is  in  this,  that  in  the  one  period  woman 
was  economically  independent  of  man,  in  the  other  she 
depended  on  him  for  support  and  maintenance.  Where, 
in  the  former  period,  she  was  not  quite  independent,  the 
man,  at  least,  depended  as  much  on  her  as  she  on  him. 
And,  economically  dependent  she  remained  during 
all  the  following  centuries.  Slavery  disappeared  and 
was  superseded  by  feudalism  with  its  institution  of  serf- 
dom. It  was,  in  a  sense,  only  a  modification  of  slavery. 
Economically  it  had  the  same  effect  on  women  as  slavery 
had.  Household-drudgery  extended  to  weaving  and 
spinning,  to  making  soap  and  brewing  beer,  and  produ- 
cing numerous  other  things  which  the  house-wife  of  the 
present  day  simply  orders  by  telephone.  Most  of  the 
work  was  done  by  the  wives  and  daughters  of  the  serfs, 
and  no  work,  the  fruits  of  which  belong  to  another, 
makes  the  worker  economically  independent.  Nor  could 
the  work  of  the  serfs  make  women  of  the  upper  classes 
economically  independent,  because  they  did  not  own  the 
serfs  and  were  not  an  economic  necessity.  Women 
were  adored  in  knightly,  romantic  fashion,  minstrels 
sang  their  praise,  and  the  baron  and  the  lord  bowed 
deeply  in  reverence  to  the  lady.  But  all  the  sometimes 
grotesque  gallantry  and  chivalry  only  served  to  demon- 
strate the  sentiment  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the  strong 


66  LOOKING  FORWARD 

to  protect  the  weak.  It  was  the  politeness  of  the  super- 
ior toward  the  inferior,  permeated  by  gross  sensuality. 
The  wife  was  under  coverture,  as  the  law  called  it,  and 
her  rights  were  few,  her  disabilities  many.  The  poets 
sang  of  fidelity  to  the  lady  in  love,  but  the  lady  in  love 
was  quite  frequently  some  other  woman  than  the  wife. 

Feudalism  was  in  form  and  spirit  a  military  institu- 
tion. Such  institutions  are  very  apt  to  produce  chivalry 
and  cavalierdom,  but  do  not  contribute  toward  the  inde- 
pendence and  dignity  of  women;  nor  can  militarism 
grant  to  women  an  extensive  sphere  of  influence. 

The  economic  arrangements  and  the  mode  of  pro- 
duction in  feudal  times  were  these :  the  peasant  serf 
delivered  to  the  landlord  the  largest  part  of  the  prod- 
ucts of  the  lord's  soil  and  his  own  toil,  and  these  were 
prepared  and  shaped  for  consumption  in  the  home. 
While  the  serfs  were  not  themselves  the  property  of 
the  lord,  they  were,  so  to  say,  a  fixture  belonging  to 
the  land,  and  their  labor  force,  as  well  as  that  of  their 
families,  practically  belonged  to  the  lord,  who  reaped 
the  fruits  of  their  labor.  For  all  practical  purposes 
they  lived  in  a  condition  of  slavery. 

It  seems  almost  needless  to  state  that  the  women  in 
those  times,  even  those  of  the  upper  classes,  received 
very  little  education,  and  learned  almost  nothing,  ex- 
cept, perhaps,  the  execution  of  needle-work.  Spending 
almost  their  whole  life  within  the  household,  which  they 
supervised  in  a  manner  pleasing  to  their  lords,  it  was 
neither  thought  useful  nor  necessary  for  them  to  know 
anything  which  had  no  relation  to  the  household  or  the 
rearing  of  children. 

That  the  life  of  the  peasant  woman  was  one  of  in- 
cessant toil  and  servitude  may  go  as  self-understood. 


THE    STATUS    OF    WOMAN  67 

The  laws  of  inheritance  were  decidedly  against 
woman,  for  in  most  cases  the  estate  went  to  the  first- 
born son.  But  the  worst  of  all  of  it  was  the  power  of 
the  lord  to  dispose  of  his  infant  in  marriage.  "This," 
says  Blackstone,  "seems  to  have  been  one  of  the  greatest 
hardships  of  ancient  tenures.  There  were  indeed  sub- 
stantial reasons  why  the  lord  should  have  the  restraint 
and  control  of  the  ward's  marriage,  especially  of  his 
female  ward;  because  of  their  tender  years,  and  the 
danger  of  such  female  ward's  intermarrying  with  the 
lord's  enemy;  but  no  tolerable  pretense  could  be  as- 
signed why  the  lord  should  have  the  sale  or  value  of 
the  marriage."  Speaking  then  of  the  origin  of  that 
right  and  of  the  provisions  of  the  charter  of  Henry  the 
First  in  respect  to  it,  he  continues :  "But  this,  among 
other  beneficial  parts  of  that  charter,  being  disregarded, 
and  guardians  still  continuing  to  dispose  of  their  wards 
(the  father  being  in  law  the  guardian  of  his  child)  in 
a  very  arbitrary,  unequal  manner,  it  was  provided,  etc." 

With  'few  exceptions,  principally  among  the  many 
petty  reigning  houses,  such  was  in  general  the  condi- 
tion of  women  in  feudal  times.  If  it  was  bad  in  the 
upper  classes,  it  was  even  worse  among  the  lower.  For 
the  nobleman  directed  the  marriages  among  his  peasant 
serfs  and  selected  husbands  and  wives  for  them  accord- 
ing to  his  pleasure.  The  daughters  of  the  peasants 
were  the  easy,  because  powerless  prey  of  his  lordship's 
lust,  and  there  is  ample  proof  that  the  "jus  primae 
noctis"  was  not  a  myth.  Blackstone  does  not  mention 
it,  but  his  description  of  the  legal  status  of  the  serfs  is 
sufficient  to  create  the  conviction  that  the  right  existed 
in  England  as  well  as  on  the  continent.  "These  villeins 
(the  word  means  those  holding  land  by  tenure  of  villen- 


68  LOOKING  FORWARD 

age)  belong  principally  to  lords  of  manors,  were 

either  annexed  to  the  manor  or  lord,  or to  the  per- 
son of  the  lord  and  transferable  by  deed  from  one  owner 
to  the  other.  They  could  not  leave  their  lord  without 
his  permission,  but  if  they  ran  away,  or  were  purloined 
from  him,  might  be  claimed  and  recovered  by  action, 
like  beasts  or  chattels.  They  held  ....  small  portions  of 
land  by  way  of  sustaining  themselves  and  families,  but 
it  was  at  the  mere  will  of  the  lord . . . .  and  it  was  upon 

villein   services and  their   services   were  not  only 

base,  but  uncertain,  both  as  to  time  and  quantity  .... 
A  villein  could  acquire  no  property  in  land  or  goods, 
but  if  he  purchased  either,  the  lord  might  enter  upon 
them,  oust  the  villein,  and  seize  them  to  his  own  use ... 
In  many  places  also  a  fine  was  payable  to  the  lord,  if 
the  villein  presumed  to  marry  his  daughter  to  anyone 
without  leave  from  the  lord,  (this  was  probably  a  later 
substitution  for  the  peculiar  right  mentioned  above. 
The  Author.)  The  lord  might  also  bring  an  action 
against  the  husband  for  damages  in  thus  purloining  his 
property.  For  the  children  of  villeins  were  also  in  the 
same  state  of  bondage  with  their  parents." 

Fortunately  all  human  institutions  are  only  transient, 
and  feudalism  was  no  exception.  In  England  serfdom 
and  villenage  were  practically  done  away  with  at  the 
end  of  the  fourteenth  century.  The  suffering  of  the 
people  caused  the  risings  of  Wat  Tyler  and  Flannoc, 
and  though  the  people  suffered  defeat  in  the  peasant's 
war,  yet  the  worst  evils  were  abolished  in  immediate 
consequence  thereof.  But  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that 
the  economic  conditions,  gradually,  had  also  changed 
considerably.  Cities  had  grown  up  and  acquired  much 
wealth,  power  and  independence;  payment  in  money 


THE;  STATUS  OF  WOMAN  69 

had  been  very  extensively  substituted  for  payment  in 
kind  or  service;  the  landless  peasants  had,  many  of 
them,  become  wage  laborers;  in  the  cities  the  trades  in- 
creased; commerce  began  to  flourish  and  tradesmen  and 
artisans  became  a  power.  The  fear  of  competition  then 
devised  the  craft  guilds. 

The  guild  system  bore  the  characteristics  of  feudal 
times.  Class-privileges  and  power  on  one  side,  com- 
pulsory service  on  the  other.  The  idea  of  free  labor, 
the  right  of  every  one  to  work  for  his  own  subsistence 
had  not  yet  entered  the  human  mind.  The  prevailing 
idea  of  a  proper  social  order  was  that  of  class-govern- 
ment. Labor  and  service  were  not  conceived  as  separ- 
able. In  the  beginning  the  craft-guilds  may  not  have 
been  more  than  organizations  for  mutual  protection 
against  the  aggressions  of  the  lords  and  barons,  and  it 
may  also  be  that  for  some  time  the  intention  of  guard- 
ing the  interests  of  the  public  against  poor  and  unsatis- 
factory work  was  more  than  a  mere  pretense,  but  the 
guilds  had  not  been  in  existence  very  long  when  they 
developed  into  powerful  institutions  with  legal  rights 
and  privileges,  creating  class-monopolies.  They  placed 
checks  and  restrictions  everywhere.  The  artisan  com- 
menced his  career  as  an  apprentice,  the  time  of  appren- 
ticeship lasting  from  seven  to  eight  years.  During  this 
time  he  was  not  much  better  than  a  slave.  When  he 
became  a  journeyman,  he  was  far  from  being  a  freeman. 
His  civil  rights  were  so  few  that  he  could  not  even 
marry,  unless  his  bride  was  the  widow  of  a  master.  He 
was  a  member  of  his  master's  household ;  but  to  become 
a  master  himself  was  a  matter  of  great  difficulty,  except 
for  masters'  sons.  He  was  lucky,  if  the  "masterpiece," 
intended  to  bear  evidence  of  his  mastership,  was  ap- 


70  IvOOKING  FORWARD 

proved  by  the  jealous  masters.  To  guard  against  com- 
petition the  guilds  fixed  the  number  of  masters  allowed 
in  a  city,  and  the  maximum  number  of  apprentices  who 
were  allowed  to  learn  the  trade.  Besides  that,  the  fees 
and  costs  which  the  journeyman  entering  mastership 
was  required  to  pay,  and  the  expenses  connected  with 
the  ceremonial  initiation  were  so  numerous  and  large 
that  they  frequently  proved  an  insurmountable  obsta- 
cle. 

There  was  tyranny  everywhere.  Quite  character- 
istic of  the  times  was  a  law  of  Venice  which  forbade 
artisans  to  practice  their  art  or  craft  in  foreign  coun- 
tries, so  as  to  preserve  the  secrets  thereof  and  the  home 
monopoly.  If  one  went  abroad,  he  was  ordered  to  re- 
turn; if  he  disobeyed,  his  nearest  relatives  were  cast 
into  prison ;  and  if  this  did  not  bring  him  home,  an 
assassin  was  sent  after  him,  and  his  relatives  were  lib- 
erated after  his  death. 

It  must  not  be  supposed  that  these  guilds  had 
smooth  sailing  all  the  time.  In  the  twelfth  and  thir- 
teenth centuries  it  was  several  times  attempted  in  Ger- 
many by  imperial  legislation  to  destroy  them,  because 
the  feudal  powers  became  jealous  of  them  and  feared 
them.  And,  later  on,  dissatisfaction  among  the  journey- 
men began  to  grow,  and  they  organized  themselves 
openly  or  secretly  for  the  purpose  of  resisting  the  mas- 
ters, but  no  social  or  political  power  was  strong  enough 
to  harm  them.  No  outside  force  was  powerful  enough 
to  destroy  them.  Their  death  came  from  foes  that  grew 
within.  They  themselves  created  the  conditions  which 
undermined  their  existence,  and  their  death  was  at  no 
time  nearer  than  when  they  and  the  merchants'  guilds 
had  reached  their  highest  stage  of  development  and 


THE    STATUS    OF    WOMAN  71 

power.  They  were  destroyed  by  the  force  of  economic 
conditions  which  they  themselves  had  brought  forth. 
When  they  had  reached  their  climax  the  process  of  self- 
destruction  commenced.  It  was  the  same  process  which 
we  witness  now  in  regard  to  the  competitive  system, 
which  is  slowly  giving  way  to  combination  and  associa- 
tion. The  institution  of  the  guilds  became,  as  I  will 
show,  an  obstacle  to  its  own  original  purposes  and  inju- 
rious to  the  very  class  which  had  created  it. 

There  is  abundant  evidence  that,  in  their  earlier  per- 
iod, women  were  in  the  crafts  as  employers  as  well  as 
employees,  but  it  is  not  difficult  to  understand  that  the 
fear  of  competition  drove  them  out.  Thereafter  no 
women  were  to  be  found  in  the  guilds  with  the  excep- 
tion of  that  of  the  prostitutes.  For,  frequently  in  the 
middle  ages  the  necessity  of  prostitution  was  recog- 
nized, the  prostitutes  were  protected  by  law  and  organ- 
ized by  ordinance  and  law. 

In  Japan,  which  emerged  from  feudalism  only  half 
a  century  ago,  houses  of  prostitution  are  to  this  day 
maintained  by  the  government. 

WiOmen  were  not  allowed  to  enter  the  trades.  They 
were  not  accepted  as  apprentices,  and  without  going 
through  the  prescribed  course  of  apprenticeship  and 
journeymanship,  they  could  not  become  masters  and 
could  not  establish  a  business  of  their  own.  Thus,  a 
woman,  unless  rich  by  inheritance,  had  not  a  shadow  of 
economic  independence.  Hardly  any  other  avenue  of 
life  was  open  to  unmarried  women,  except  that  of  a 
house  servant,  and  they  were  driven  by  the  thousands 
into  vagabondage  and  prostitution.  Perhaps  there  was 
no  time  in  the  history  of  Europe  when  vagabondage 
and  prostitution  had  grown  to  such  enormous  proper- 


72  LOOKING  FORWARD 

tions  as  in  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries.  At 
fairs  or  upon  occasions  where  many  men  assembled, 
these  female  vagabonds  appeared  by  the  hundreds  or 
thousands.  The  historian  tells  us  that  the  council  of 
Constance,  where  the  pope  and  the  emperor,  numerous 
princes,  dukes,  counts  and  electors  of  the  German 
empire,  as  well  as  a  large  number  of  cardinals,  bishops 
and  other  prelates  had  assembled,  accompanied  by  their 
large  retinues,  witnessed  the  presence  of  not  less  than 
fifteen  hundred  of  these  women  in  the  city. 

This  was  at  a  time  when  feudalism  and  serfdom  in 
Germany  were  still  in  full  force.  The  German  peasants' 
war  came  more  than  a  hundred  years  later  than  the 
English,  but  the  power  of  the  cities  had  already 
assumed  large  proportions  and  the  numerous  guilds 
controlled  the  economic  life  therein.  The  cities,  in  Eng- 
land, as  well  as  on  the  continent,  by  trade  and  com- 
merce, amassed  great  wealth,  and  from  that  time  dates 
the  rise  of  that  class  which  now,  in  economic  parlance 
is  designated  by  the  French  word  bourgeoisie. 

Contemporaneous  with  the  splendor  of  the  cities 
was  the  misery  and  degradation  of  the  country  people; 
in  England  after  the  war  of  the  races,  in  Germany  after 
the  thirty  years'  war.  Vagabondage  of  men  and  women 
increased  to  incredible'  proportions.  In  Germany  it 
was  forced  upon  the  populace  by  the  almost  complete 
devastation  of  the  country,  in  England  by  the  discharge 
of  the  many  retainers  of  the  impoverished  nobility. 
Nothing  can  give  a  better  idea  of  the  fearful  extent  of 
vagabondage  than  the  severity  and  cruelty  with  which 
it  was  attempted  to  suppress  it. 

By  an  act  of  parliament  it  was  laid  down  in  1547 
as  law  in  England  that  every  able-bodied  loiterer  should 


THE    STATUS    OF    WOMAN  73 

be  branded  with  a  hot  iron  and  handed  over  as  a  slave 
to  the  person  who  denounced  him.  The  slave  might  be 
kept  on  bread  and  water,  and  refused  meat  or  good 
nourishment  of  any  kind;  he  might  be  compelled  to 
undertake  the  most  filthy  task  by  means  of  flogging  or 
other  torture.  If  he  ran  away  for  a  fortnight,  he  was 
condemned  to  perpetual  slavery  and  to  be  branded  with 
the  letter  S  on  his  cheek  and  on  his  forehead;  if  he 
ran  away  again,  death  as  a  felon  was  his  doom.  His 
master  could  sell  him,  bequeath  him,  or  let  him  like  a 
horse  or  a  mule.  Death  was  the  punishment  of  slaves 
who  "contrived  aught  against  their  masters."  When 
one  of  the  vagabonds  was  caught  in  the  roads  by  the 
public  officers,  he  was  branded  with  the  letter  V  on  his 
chest,  and  brought  back  to  his  birth-place,  where  he 
must  work  in  chains  on  the  public  road.  If  a  vagrant 
gave  a  false  birth-place,  he  became  a  slave  of  the  muni- 
cipality, and  was  branded  again.  His  children  became 
the  apprentices  of  the  first-comer  who  wanted  them,  the 
lads  to  the  age  of  twenty-four,  the  girls  up  to  the  age 
of  twenty.  If  these  poor  creatures  took  to  flight  they 
then  became  slaves  to  their  masters,  who  might  put 
them  in  irons,  whip  them,  put  rings  around  their  necks, 
and  the  like. 

If  we  were  to  judge  the  condition  of  the  people  in 
those  times  from  the  romantic  rubbish  written  of  them, 
we  would  be  forced  to  believe  that  their  lot  was  one 
of  exalted  happiness  and  serenity,  and  that  life  was  a 
continuous  love-feast.  The  truth,  however,  is,  that 
these  conditions  produced  debauchery  and  immorality  to 
an  almost  incredible  degree.  Even  prior  to  this  period 
of  vagabondage  the  manners  of  the  upper  classes  were 
such  that  they  would  shock  our  sense  of  decency  and 


74  LOOKING  FORWARD 

propriety.  It  was  nothing  to  women  of  the  better  classes 
to  sit  down  in  the  company  of  half  drunken  men  and 
listen  complacently  to  the  vilest  stories  and  jests.  Un- 
doubtedly there  was  much  of  the  romantic  in  their  life, 
if  for  no  other  reason,  than  that  the  women,  having 
many  servants,  had  not  much  else  to  do,  and  did  not 
know  what  else  to  do,  than  to  indulge  in  love-affairs. 
Their  education  was  scanty,  their  horizon  narrow.  But 
romanticism  has  ever  been  the  companion  of  an  inferior 
social  position  of  women.  Sensuous  adoration  took  the 
place  of  true  respect.  The  greater  the  inequality  of 
rights  and  position,  the  more  romanticism  in  the  rela- 
tion between  the  sexes.  There  is  a  want  of  common 
interest  in  matters  outside  of  personal  relations.  But 
what  sort  of  morals  romanticism  is  apt  to  produce,  how 
it  may  lower  the  dignity  of  man,  and  inevitably  must 
lower  the  dignity  of  woman,  we  may  judge,  when  we 
learn  that  a  prince  of  Liechtenstein  drank  the  water 
with  which  his  lady-love  had  washed  herself;  cities 
maintained  houses  of  prostitution,  and  conducted  visiting 
noblemen  of  high  rank  to  them  as  their  guests.  When 
king  Wladislaw  of  Bohemia  visited  Vienna  in  1452,  the 
city  authorities  sent  for  his  reception  a  deputation  of 
prostitutes,  clad  in  nothing  but  a  dress  of  thin  gauze ; 
and  worse  than  that,  emperor  Charles  the  Fifth  was,  on 
the  occasion  of  his  visit  in  Bruges,  received  by  a  deputa- 
tion of  citizens'  daughters,  wearing  nothing  but  nature's 
costume.  The  latter  event  has  been  memorialized  by  the 
great  painter  Hans  Makart  in  one  of  his  celebrated 
paintings. 

Such  was  the  state  of  morality  in  a  time  when 
women  had  neither  social  nor  political  rights.  It  is 
quite  well  for  those  who  fear  from  the  entrance  of 


THE    STATUS    OF    WOMAN  75 

women  into  business  pursuits  and  political  life  the  loss 
of  their  femininity,  to  know  this  and  ask  themselves 
whether  women  were  in  those,  times  more  truly  feminine 
than  in  ours  with  less  romanticism,  but  with  more  good 
practical  sense.  Upon  the  other  hand,  we  may  well  ask 
ourselves,  whether  such  a  state  of  things  had  been  pos- 
sible, if  women  had  an  opportunity  of  making  them- 
selves useful  in  some  way  in  the  economic  affairs  of 
society,  striving  toward  economic  independence,  hav- 
ing an  influence  in  shaping  the  economic  structure 
of  society,  and  taking  an  interest  in  the  life  of 
the  nation.  Such,  however,  was  impossible  under 
the  feudal  system,  as  well  as  under  the  guild  system. 
And  I  want  to  say  right  here,  that  speaking  of  economic 
independence  of  women  as  a  powerful  liberating  factor, 
I  do  not  mean  such  independence  in  isolated  cases,  but 
as  a  general  condition,  although  it  is  not  altogether 
without  influence,  even  if  appearing  sporadically.  As 
is  was,  the  women  of  the  lower  classes  were,  in  the 
country,  slaves  of  the  field,  in  the  cities,  slaves  of  the 
large  household,  which  included  beside  the  family,  the 
journeymen  and  apprentices;  the  women  of  the  upper 
classes  were,  at  least  in  earlier  times,  slaves  of  the  house- 
hold, and  both  were  subject  to  the  superior  will  of  their 
lords  and  masters.  The  only  semblance  of  freedom  ex- 
isted among  the  prostitutes. 

Time  passed  on  and  the  guilds  died.  In  respect  to 
death  the  fate  of  human  institutions  does  not  differ  from 
the  fate  of  man  himself.  Powerful  as  the  guilds  were, 
and  indispensable  as  they  were  considered  in  their 
days  for  the  existence  of  human  society,  society  nev- 
ertheless exists  to-day  without  them.  The  ruling  classes 
always  believed  their  institutions  to  be  indispensable  for 


76  LOOKING  FORWARD 

the  welfare  of  mankind;  they  believe  so  to-day.  Yet 
subsequent  history  never  failed  to  show  the  fallacy  of 
such  belief.  Is  it  to  be  doubted  that  future  history  will 
do  the  same? 

The  guild  system  was  a  system  of  restraints,  but 
these  restraints,  in  course  of  time,  became  obnoxious  to 
the  very  class  that  had  created  them  for  its  own  protec- 
tion. For  never  was  human  ingenuity  able  to  devise 
social  or  economic  institutions  that  did  not  from  their 
very  beginning  conceal  within  themselves  the  elements 
of  their  own  destruction.  There  could  be  no  evolution 
if  it  were  not  so.  Every  economic  system  will  collapse 
or  topple  over  upon  reaching  the  climax  of  its  develop- 
ment, but  long  before  reaching  that  point,  the  signs  of 
its  coming  death  will  become  visible,  not  to  everybody, 
perhaps,  but  to  the  cool  and  prudent  observer. 

The  guild-system  served  its  purpose  to  protect  and 
enrich  certain  classes  quite  well.  But  when  the  power 
of  production  increased  in  consequence  of  the  inventive 
genius  of  man,  and  when  commerce  also  increased,  espe- 
cially after  the  discovery  of  the  Western  continent  and 
the  finding  of  the  ocean-passage  to  India  towards  the  end 
of  the  fifteenth  century,  and  when  the  accumulated  wealth 
was  gradually  turned  into  capital,  that  is,  turned  from  a 
source  of  enjoyment  into  an  instrument  of  profit-making, 
which  was  greatly  facilitated  by  the  growth  and  exten- 
sion of  money-economy,  the  restrictive  system  failed  to 
serve  its  purpose.  It  became  a  hindrance  to  the  use  of 
capital  and  the  increased  power  of  production.  Capital 
needs  elbow-room.  It  is  inimical  to  every  restriction  in 
its  use.  It  needs  room  for  the  expansion  of  its  uses. 
So  it  came  that  the  classes  against  whom  restriction  was 
directed,  were  hardly  more  instrumental  in  its  overthrow 


THE    STATUS    OF    WOMAN  77 

than  the  class  for  whom  it  was  instituted,  and  who  had 
grown  rich  under  it.  The  accumulation  of  wealth  had 
reached  a  point  where  restriction  became  a  barrier  to 
further  increase  and  accumulation.  Having  reached  the 
climax  of  its  development,  where  it  was  no  longer  able 
to  serve  its  original  purposes,  where  in  fact  it  became 
an  obstacle  to  the  objects  for  which  it  had  been  created, 
its  death  was  inadvertible.  The  era  of  free  trade  and 
competition  appeared.  (The  expression  free  trade  is  not 
to  be  understood  as  meaning  absence  of  tariff-duties,  but 
absence  of  restrictions  of  trade.) 

It  must  not  be  understood  that  all  the  restraints  were 
removed  at  once.  It  was  done  gradually,  one  after  the 
other,  during  and  after  a  long  continued  class-struggle. 
In  France  the  last  feudal  rights  and  guild-restraints 
were  abolished  during  the  great  revolution,  and  in  Ger- 
many after  the  revolution  of  1848.  There  was  plenty  of 
feudalism  in  our  country  prior  to  the  revolution  and  the 
declaration  of  independence,  and  even  some  time  after- 
wards. We  had  not  only  negro-slavery,  but  it  was  also 
possible  to  keep  white  persons  in  bondage  as  debtors, 
apprentices,  or  under  some  sort  of  contract.  In  Penn- 
sylvania white  persons  were  sold  like  slaves,  for  terms 
at  least.  Here  are  two  samples  of  advertisements  that 
recently  came  under  my  notice: 

"To  be  sold.  A  likely  Servant  Woman  having  three 
years  and  a  half  to  serve.  She  is  a  good  spinner."  — 
(Pennsylvania  Gazette,  June  1742.) 

"To  be  sold.  A  Dutch  apprentice  lad  who  has  five 
years  and  three  months  to  serve;  he  has  been  brought 
up  to  the  Taylor's  business.  Can  work  well." — (Penn- 
sylvania Staatsbote,  Dec.  13,  1773.) 

With  the  growth    of  industrialism,    however,    labor 


78  LOOKING  FORWARD 

was  freed,  for,  as  I  remarked  before,  experience  had 
taught  that  the  free  laborer  was  a  better  property  pro- 
ducing machine  than  the  man  held  in  bondage. 

And  now  commenced  the  stupendous  growth  of  cap- 
ital and  its  career  of  industrial  and  commercial  expan- 
sion and  exploitation  of  human  labor.  It  was  im- 
mensely aided  in  this  career  by  the  discovery  of  natural 
forces,  not  known  hitherto,  such  as  that  of  steam  and 
electricity,  and  the  invention  of  machinery,  through 
which  the  power  of  production  increased  astoundingly. 
From  now  on  the  economic  history  of  the  new  world 
does  not  differ  materially  from  that  of  the  old.  The 
new  era  took  over  from  the  old  the  large  mass  of  land- 
less and  propertyless  people,  and  material  for  the  ex- 
ploitation of  labor  existed  in  abundance.  The  laborers 
being  free,  they  were  also  left  to  compete  with  each 
other.  This  resulted  in  two  kinds  of  competition,  that 
between  employer  and  employer,  and  that  between 
laborer  and  laborer,  both  kinds  of  competition  tend- 
ing to  increase  wealth  on  one  side  and  poverty  on 
the  other.  And  although  I  am  ready  to  admit  that 
during  this  period  the  condition  of  the  laborers  im- 
proved and  that  they  became  able  to  satisfy  needs  and 
tastes  which  could  not  be  satisfied  by  the  laborers  of 
former  periods,  yet  it  remains  true  that  in  proportion  to 
the  increase  of  the  power  of  production  and  the  stupen- 
dous growth  of  wealth,  they  became  actually  poorer. 

A  good  deal  of  the  improvement  in  the  condition  of 
the  working-classes  consists  in  the  possibility  of  procur- 
ing things  which,  from  a  modern  standpoint,  may  seem 
quite  necessary  for  the  support  and  enjoyment  of  life, 
but  are  not  absolutely  so.  They  are  things  of  luxury  or 
comfort  which  one  does  not  miss,  if  one  does  not  know 


THE;  STATUS  OF  WOMAN  79 

of  them.  But  as  far  as  food  and  wearing  apparel  are 
concerned,  the  workmen  of  five  centuries  ago  seem  to 
have  been  as  well,  if  not  better,  off  than  those  of  to-day. 
This  is  amply  proven  by  the  sumptuary  laws  of  those 
times.  In  Saxony  it  was  ordained  in  1482  that  mechan- 
ics and  mowers  must  be  content  with  receiving  beside 
their  wages  in  money,  twice  a  day,  at  noon  and  in  the 
evening,  four  "speisen"  (kinds  of  food)  :  soup,  two 
kinds  of  meat  and  one  kind  of  vegetables,  and  on  fast 
days  five  "speisen":  soup,  two  kinds  of  fish  and  two 
kinds  of  vegetables. 

In  England,  parliament  passed  in  1463  a  statute  by 
which  agricultural  laborers  were  not  allowed  to  use 
materials  for  clothing,  which  cost  more  than  two  shillings 
a  yard,  nor  were  they  to  have  a  pair  of  stockings  which 
cost  more  than  fourteen  pence;  silver  girdles  were  also 
prohibited.  A  wife  was  ordered  not  to  give  more  than 
a  shilling  for  a  head  dress.  Twenty  years  later  laborers 
were  allowed  to  have  stockings  which  cost  eighteen  pence 
a  pair  and  a  wife  might  spend  one  shilling  and  eight 
pence  for  a  head  dress.  Considering  the  value  of  money 
in  those  times,  these  prices  were  enormously  high. 

Undoubtedly,  the  workingmen  enjoy  to-day  the  com- 
fort of  things  that  then  did  not  even  exist,  and  which, 
therefore,  even  the  wealthiest  did  not  have,  but  the  fact 
that,  for  instance,  emperor  Nero  could  not  with  all  his 
power  procure  a  gas-stove  or  a  petroleum-lamp,  does  not 
make  the  laborer  of  the  twentieth  century  a  whit  hap- 
pier. It  must  also  not  be  overlooked  that  dissatisfaction 
in  one  class  of  people  is  not  so  much  produced  by  the 
latter's  own  condition,  as  by  comparison  between  its 
condition  and  that  of  another  class.  The  poorest  Amer- 
ican workman  has  in  his  most  humble1  dwelling  far  more 


80  BOOKING  FORWARD 

comfort  than  the  Eskimo  in  his  snow-hut,  but,  of  the 
two,  the  Eskimo  is,  probably,  the  more  happy  and  con- 
tented. 

The  new  industrial  system,  the  characteristic  of 
which  is  the  massing  together  of  hundreds  and  thous- 
ands for  production  under  centralized  direction  in  the 
most  economical  manner,  with  division  of  labor  and  the 
aid  of  all  technical  facilities  which  the  ingenuity  of  man 
could  devise,  not  for  the  immediate  purpose  of  con- 
sumption, but  for  the  purpose  of  commerce,  had  won- 
derful effects,  and  produced  an  economic  class,  which 
gradually  acquired  all  the  power  and  influence  formerly 
possessed  by  the  landowing  class.  It  changed  the  char- 
acter of  whole  nations,  made  England,  which  formerly 
had  been  a  purely  agricultural  country,  a  purely  indus- 
trial country,  and  is  now  completing  the  same  process  in 
Germany.  It  is  due  to  the  vastness  of  the  country  that 
the  same  effect  was  only  partially  produced  in  the  United 
States,  but  in  the  New  England  states  agriculture  is 
nearly  extinguished.  It  built  railroads  and  steamships, 
reducing  distance  to  almost  nothing,  thereby  facilitating 
the  shifting  of  population  for  industrial  purposes;  it  has 
tarnished  the  escutcheons  of  nobility  and  robbed  titles 
of  their  awe;  it  has  democratized  the  world  politically, 
without,  however,  being  able  to  abolish  social  distinc- 
tions ;  it  has  produced  an  enormous  mass  of  wealth,  such 
as  the  world  has  never  seen  before,  and  made  one  class 
produce  it  for  the  other  without  the  use  of  physical  force 
or  compulsory  service,  merely  by  the  operation  of  eco- 
nomic conditions.  Originally  destined  to  break  down 
monopoly  created  by  the  force  of  law,  it  soon  created 
monopoly  by  mere  economic  force.  By  the  same  force 
of  conditions  only,  without  the  use  of  any  legal  or  phys- 


THE    STATUS    OF    WOMAN  81 

ical  restraints,  it  closed  to  certain  classes  the  higher 
avenues  of  life  just  as  effectually,  as  they  were  formerly 
closed  to  them  by  mediaeval  laws  and  institutions,  thus 
achieving  by  technical  freedom  and  equality  a  result,  in 
many  respects  similar  to  the  results  of  feudalism  and  the 
guild-restraints.  But  while  under  these  latter  systems 
the  social  and  political  stacus  of  everyone  was  clearly 
defined  by  tradition,  custom  and  law,  and  the  course  of 
life  laid  out  by  strict  regulations  in  every  walk  of  life 
with  such  precision,  that  everyone  could,  with  a  degree 
of  certainty,  foresee  and  map  out  his  future,  the  new 
system  brought  into  all  classes  of  society  a  high  degree 
of  uncertainty  of  the  prospects  of  the  future,  so  that  in 
course  of  time  it  became  impregnated  with  the  charac- 
ter of  speculation.  One  of  the  most  marked  effects 
which  it  had,  was  that  on  the  life  and  status  of  women. 
Through  all  the  centuries  of  slavery,  feudalism  and 
(may  I  use  the  word?)  guildism,  the  women  were  no 
economic  factor.  These  systems  of  production  left  no 
room  for  women  in  the  economics  of  the  time.  Women 
took  no  part  in  the  production  of  the  necessaries  of  life, 
except  as  help-mates  in  the  most  uninfluential  and  the 
most  dependent  classes,  which  were  not  free  agencies, 
but  were  tools  or  instruments  of  labor.  Through  these 
thousands  of  years  women  had  few,  if  any,  civil  or 
property  rights;  through  these  thousands  of  years  their 
condition  was  more  or  less,  one  of  tutelage.  Hypocrit- 
ical sentimentalism  and  gallantry  subjected  them  fre- 
quently to  cruel  and  brutal  laws  under  the  pretense  of 
protecting  their  weakness.  The  natural  influence  of  sex- 
difference  made  men  display  in  the  presence  of  women 
a  deference  and  courtesy  which  disappeared  in  their  ab- 
sence. Upon  the  other  hand,  long  continued  usage  had 


82  LOOKING  FORWARD 

made  women  content  with  receiving  homage  and  flat- 
tery, and  left  them  without  aspirations  and  pretensions 
in  public  affairs  and  the  political  life  of  the  nations. 
False  sentimentalism  and  sickly  romanticism  believe  even 
to  this  day  that  this  is  the  proper  position  of  women, 
that  their  beauty  and  graces  inspire  men  to  —  I  would 
say  acts  of  bravery  and  valor,  if  mediaeval  customs  still 
prevailed,  but  they  having  become  extinct,  I  must  say 
according  to  the  customs  of  our  own  times  —  money- 
making  with  the  hope  of  carrying  away  the  fairest  of  the 
fair  as  wife,  whose  principal  duty  shall  thereafter  be  to 
caress  away  from  her  husband's  brow  the  wrinkles  put 
there  by.  business  cares,  and  make  his  home  comfortable. 
Undoubtedly  this  is  a  poetic  and  idyllic  thought.  But 
alas,  life  is  no  idyl  and  reality  is  stronger  than  fancy. 

And  now  behold!  The  competitive  system,  or  as  it 
is  also  called,  the  capitalistic  system,  no  sooner  is  firmly 
established,  than  it  draws  woman  into  the  whirl  of  eco- 
nomic life.  All  the  fences  and  hedges  which  surrounded 
the  individual's  life  are  torn  down.  All  the  carefully 
laid  pathways  for  each  individual's  economic  life  are 
obliterated,  the  regulation  and  protection  which  the 
social  and  economic  fabric  had  thrown  around  the  indi- 
vidual and  had  given  his  course  certainty  and  steadiness, 
"  vanished,  and  every  person  was  set  free  and  thrown 
upon  his  or  her  own  resources.  But  the  wealth  remained 
in  the  hands  of  those  who  had  accumulated  it  before,  and 
now  possessed  the  greatest  freedom  in  its  uses.  The 
others,  men  and  women  alike,  were  left  to  their  wits  and 
possibilities  to  get  along  as  well  as  they  could.  Men 
and  women  alike  had  from  now  on  to  seek  a  livelihood, 
unaided  by  institutions  of  law,  except  such  for  the  pro- 
tection of  property  and  contract  rights.  There  still  ex- 


THE    STATUS    OF    WOMAN  83 

isted  many  laws,  customs  and  prejudices  which  were  a 
hindrance  not  only  to  women  in  the  use  of  their  eco- 
nomic force,  but  also  to  men  in  the  economic  use  of 
women.  What,  therefore,  was  more  natural  and  log- 
ical than  the  commencement  of  the  movement  for  the 
emancipation  of  women?  The  new  economic  system 
conjured  up  that  movement.  And  as  natural  and  log- 
ical as  was  its  creation,  so  natural  and  logical  was  its 
success.  It  would  have  been  impossible  for  the  indus- 
trial system  to  make  the  extensive  use  of  women  that  it 
was  destined  to  make  without  giving  them  full  property 
rights.  Slowly  and  grudgingly  as  they  were  given  they 
had  to  be  given,  because  the  new  system  of  production 
demanded  it.  It  was  not  a  voluntary  concession,  al- 
though it  had  the  appearance  of  it.  It  was  not  the 
chivalry  of  the  male  sex,  nor  the  men's  advanced  views 
of  equality,  nor  a  higher  sense  of  justice  that  gave  to 
women  all  the  rights  of  person  and  property.  Neither 
was  it  done  from  a  more  exalted  conception  of  right; 
nor  was  it  the  continued  clamor  of  women  for  their 
rights  which  brought  about  this  change  in  their  posi- 
tion. The  new  system  of  production  needed  women 
who  were  free  in  the  use  of  their  persons  and  their  prop- 
erty; it  could  not  get  along  without  them.  It  had  been 
discovered  that  the  free  male  laborer  was  a  better  prop- 
erty producing  machine  than  the  unfree.  Why  should 
this  not  hold  true  in  reference  to  women?  Political 
rights  were  not  necessary  for  making  them  good  pro- 
ducers; personal  and  property  rights  sufficed  for  that 
purpose;  therefore  political  rights  were  and  still  are 
withheld  from  women,  except  where  they  are  granted  for 
local  reasons,  as  for  instance  for  the  purpose  of  temper- 
ance legislation,  or  where  the  lower  economic  class  has 


84  BOOKING  FORWARD 

already  gained  much  political  power,  as  in  Australia. 
Freedom  of  contract,  however,  had  become  under  the 
new  economic  system  an  economic  necessity,  for  without 
it,  the  unhampered  exploitation  of  female  labor  would 
have  been  impossible. 

Customs  and  social  habits  change  slowly.  Habit  and 
prejudice,  therefore,  still  block  the  way  of  women  to- 
ward establishing  themselves  in  business  of  their  own, 
but  many  of  them  devoted  themselves  to  art  and  litera- 
ture and  teaching.  They  strove  for  better  education, 
and  I  say,  without  fear  of  contradiction,  that  the  aver- 
age American  woman  is  to-day  better  educated  than  the 
average  American  man.  But  the  nineteenth  century  wit- 
nessed1 an  influx  of  women  in  remarkable  and  still  grow- 
ing numbers  in  industrial  and  commercial  pursuits  as 
wage-earners.  They  entered  the  office  as  stenographers, 
typewriters,  bookkeepers  and  clerks,  the  store  as  clerks 
and  saleswomen,  the  factory  as  laborers.  The  number 
of  factory  women  reaches  into  the  millions.  In  Eng- 
land women  have  worked  and,  I  believe,  still  work  even 
in  coal  mines.  In  the  United  States  they  are  generally 
employed  in  lighter  work,  such  as  cotton-spinning,  mak- 
ing paper-boxes  and  principally  in  the  garment  indus- 
tries. But  they  are  also  found  in  places  where  one 
would  not  expect  to  find  them.  So,  for  instance,  I 
found  several  hundred  of  them  at  work  in  one  of  the 
largest  machine  shops  in  the  country,  where  they  were 
spinning  thread  around  copper  wire.  Wherever  the 
hand-work  is  light,  or  wherever  the  machine  works  auto- 
matically, needing  only  attendance,  we  find  women  of  all 
ages  in  employment.  In  bakeries  and  in  laundries  they 
sometimes  perform  very  hard  work.  They  do  even  the 
nasty  and  loathsome  work  of  assorting  rags.  They 


THE    STATUS    OF    WOMAN  85 

work  in  the  company  of  men,  frequently  work  ten  hours 
a  day  and  more,  and  do  night  work  as  well  as  day  work. 
There  are  industries,  for  instance  the  cotton  industry, 
where  the  number  of  women  far  exceeds  that  of  the  men. 

As  a  general  rule  they  receive  only  small  wages,  sel- 
dom enough  to  support  them  sufficiently  and  decently. 
They  receive  from  two  dollars  a  week  upward  to  six, 
seven  or  eight  dollars,  and  only  seldom  reach  ten  dollars 
or  over.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  the  moral  effect  of 
all  this  is  bad,  very  bad.  Not  less  so  is  the  physical 
effect  on  women.  An  exhaustive  investigation  of  the 
relation  of  hard  physical  work  to  the  health  of  women 
wage-earners  was  made  by  the  Massachusetts  Bureau  of 
Labor  statistics.  It  is  shown  there  that  the  reproduct- 
ive organs  in  particular  are  injured  by  the  strain  of  their 
labor  and  that  their  physical  ability  to  perform  the  ma- 
ternal functions  is  greatly  impaired.  It  is  even  recom- 
mended, as  a  result  of  that  investigation,  that  immature 
girls  should  be  prevented  by  law  from  working  in  fac- 
tories, stores,  business  institutions  of  all  descriptions,  and 
that  the  law  should  have  jurisdiction  over  the  labor  of 
all  women. 

Of  a  very  serious  nature  also  is  the  economic  effect. 
Woman's  labor,  being  so  much  cheaper  than  man's  labor, 
replaces  the  latter  in  thousands  of  instances,  and  fre- 
quently leaves  to  the  men  no  other  choice  but  to  aban- 
don the  particular  branch  of  employment  or  be  satisfied 
with  smaller  wages.  In  consequence  thereof  female 
wage-labor  has  the  general  tendency  to  force  down  the 
wages  of  men  and  the  standard  of  living  in  the  laboring 
class.  Hence  the  opposition  of  labor  organizations  to 
the  employment  of  women.  But  the  opposition  is  fruit- 
less. The  prevailing  economic;  system,  or  rather  the  syj>- 


86  LOOKING   FORWARD 

tern  of  production,  is  stronger  than  this  opposition.  I 
am  of  the  opinion  that,  in  consonance  with  the  present 
mode  of  production,  the  use  of  female  labor  will  in- 
crease with  the  growth  of  industry  and  the  increase  of 
the  facility  of  production.  There  is  no  other  force,  at 
present,  to  counteract  its  effect  on  wages  than  the  efforts 
of  labor  organizations  toward  increase  of  wages  and  the 
elevation  of  the  standard  of  living  of  the  working  class. 
I  believe  also,  however,  that  in  course  of  time,  and  as  a 
consequence  of  continued  efforts  of  women  to  better  the 
condition  of  their  sex,  the  police  power  of  the  State  will 
be  more  extensively  used  toward  the  improvement  of 
the  sanitary  condition  of  factories  and  the  prohibition  of 
the  employment  of  female  labor  at  periods  and  in  kinds 
of  work  peculiarly  injurious  to  the  sex.  I  regret  to  be 
compelled  to  say  that,  in  this  respect,  the  laws  in  this 
great  republic  are  far  behind  those  of  some  of  the  Euro- 
pean monarchies. 

After  woman  had  been  drawn  into  the  whirl  of  eco- 
nomic life  as  wage-earner,  having  been  forced  to  take  up 
the  struggle  of  existence  for  herself,  it  was  natural  and 
unavoidable  that  she  would  enter  the  struggle  for  supe- 
rior position,  for  that  is  one  of  the  forms  of  the  economic 
struggle  of  our  time.  Her  energy  and  force  once  em- 
ployed in  the  economics  of  the  time,  there  was  no  reason 
for  her,  after  having  discovered  their  value,  to  use  them 
only  in  inferior  positions.  The  consciousness  of  her 
force  and  ability  having  been  awakened  in  her,  why 
should  she  not  strive  for  all  the  accomplishments  neces- 
sary for  the  higher  positions  and  become  lawyer,  doctor, 
or  anything  better  than  a  mere  wage-earner?  Has  any- 
body a  right  to  complain?  Had  not  competition  been 
proclaimed  to  be  the  life  of  trade?  Did  the  theory  hold 


THE    STATUS    OF    WOMAN  87 

good  only  as  to  industry,  commerce  and  common  labor, 
and  not  as  to  the  professions?  Had  doctors  and  law- 
yers a  right  to  complain  of  competition  while  working- 
men  had  not?  From  the  moment  that  exploitation  of 
female  labor  force  was  begun,  the  modern  woman- 
movement  was  destined  to  appear.  It  owes  its  birth  to 
our  economic  system,  and  no  prejudice  and  no  scorn  will 
prove  strong  enough  to  hinder  it  in  its  onward  course. 
Henceforward  it  will  be  a  very  important  factor  in  the 
evolution  of  social  institutions. 

The  "new  woman"  will  not  any  longer  be  an  object 
of  ridicule,  but  of  respect;  she  will  soon  not  be  "new" 
any  more;  and  I  am  sure  the  time  will  come,  or  rather 
return,  when  the  voice  of  women  will  neither  re- 
main unheard,  nor  unheeded  in  matters  of  public  con- 
cern. 

Bad  as  the  moral,  physical  and  economic  effect  of 
woman-labor  in  offices,  stores  and  factories  is  at  pres- 
ent, I  believe  that  it  is  merely  a  phenomenon  peculiar 
to  all  transitions.  The  birth  of  a  new  time  is  always 
attended  with  pain  and  suffering.  The  adjustment  of 
social  institutions  and  regulations  of  life  to  new  eco- 
nomic conditions  is  necessarily  a  slow  process,  and 
changes  which  are  beneficial  to  mankind  are,  in  the  begin- 
ning, very  often  injurious  to  single  classes.  Liberation 
was  not  an  immediate  unmixed  blessing  to  the  slave 
who  needed  time  to  learn  the  use  of  freedom.  The  in- 
troduction of  machinery,  one  of  the  greatest  blessings  to 
mankind,  caused  much  misery  and  suffering  by  throw- 
ing thousands  out  of  employment.  I  am  sure  a  time 
will  come  when  all  the  evils  of  female  labor  will  have 
disappeared,  and  when  it  will  be  of  general  benefit  to 
individual  and  social  life.  It  will  not  always  be  in  the 


88  kOOkJNG  W-ORWARD 


form  of  cheap  employment,  it  will  not  always  be  In  the 
form  of  wage-labor.  I  am  sure,  that  in  the  selection  of 
woman's  work,  full  regard  will  be  had  to  her  physical 
and  mental  characteristics.  I  think  it  will  gradually, 
though  in  all  probability  very  slowly,  assume  a  form 
which,  together  with  other  causes,  will  bring  about  the 
economic  freedom  of  women,  and  along  jvith  this,  per- 
fect social  and  political  equality  of  the  y^xes. 

I  have  endeavored  to  show  in  this  chapter  that  eco- 
nomic institutions  are  not  less  subject  to  change  than 
other  human  institutions;  that  along  with  the  evolution 
of  economic  institutions,  the  status  of  woman  also  under- 
went changes,  and  that  it  always  stood  in  close  relation 
to  her  participation  in  the  economics  of  the  time.  The 
condition  of  women  improved,  their  power  and  influence 
increased  or  decreased  in  proportion  to  their  being  a 
factor  in  the  process  of  the  production  of  the  necessaries 
of  life,  in  being  an  economic  factor  in  the  life  of  the 
nation.  Hence  I  conclude  that  the  woman  question  Is 
an  economic  question  and  that  sentiments  of  right  and 
justice  play  only  a  secondary  role  in  the  solution  of  the 
problem,  such  sentiments  being  themselves  the  product 
of  economic  conditions. 

I  am  frank  enough  to  state  that  I  do  not  see  how 
under  the  present  economic  organization  of  the  world 
the  economic  independence,  necessary  for  the  full  eman- 
cipation of  women,  may  become  possible.  For  to  repeat, 
if  I  speak  of  the  economic  independence  of  women,  I  do 
not  mean  independence  in  isolated  cases,  but  independ- 
ence as  a  general  condition.  I  do  not  mean  the  possi- 
bility for  some  women  of  becoming  independently  rich 
in  some  way,  or  receiving  good  wages  in  competition 
with  other  women  or  in  competition  with  men.  Wage- 


THE    STATUS    OF    WOMAN  89 

labor  can  never  create  general  independence.  I  do  mean 
the  absolute  certainty  of,  and  positive  right  to,  a  suffi- 
cient livelihood  and  reasonable  comfort  for  every  mar- 
ried or  unmarried  woman  performing  a  reasonable 
amount  of  useful  work,  be  it  either  physical  or  intellect- 
ual, adapted  to  her  nature.  Great  and  far  reaching 
changes  will  have  to  come  before  this  independence 
will  be  possible,  changes  in  the  economic  structure  of 
society,  changes  in  the  form  of  government.  Of  what 
nature  these  changes  will  be  in  all  their  details  I  am, 
of  course,  unable  to  say.  I  think,  however,  it  is  true, 
as  is  frequently  asserted,  that  society  is  passing  from  a 
condition  of  individualism  into  a  condition  of  socialism. 
I  think  it  is  also  true  that  the  creation  and  the  growth 
of  trusts  prove  it  and  indicate  the  advent  of  new  eco- 
nomic arrangements  based  on  the  principle  of  associa- 
tion. They  certainly  are  directed  against  competition 
and,  perhaps,  evidence  the  fact  that  the  system  of  com- 
petition has  reached  its  climax  and  is  slowly  dying.  Per- 
sonally I  am  inclined  to  believe  so.  But  while  there  can 
be  no  doubt  of  its  death  at  some  time,  because  to  deny 
that  would  be  a  denial  of  all  evolution  of  progress  in  the 
past  and  in  the  future,  and  while  we  may  predict  with  a 
degree  of  certainty  the  general  principle  on  which  the 
social  structure  of  the  future  will  be  erected,  we  cannot 
possibly  at  this  time  describe  all  its  forms  in  detail. 

Economic  independence  as  I  mean  it,  has,  it  is  need- 
less to  assert,  not  yet  been  reached  even  by  men.  But 
it  is  a  fact,  that  women  generally  depend  on  men  for 
their  support,  and  that  this  dependence  is  considered  to 
be  quite  within  the  natural  order  of  things,  whereas 
cases  in  which  men  depend  on  women  for  their  support 


90  LOOKING  FORWARD 

are  rare,  and  are  considered  without  the  natural  order 
of  things.  This  is  the  cause  of  many  inferiorities  in 
woman's  life  and  position  in  spite  of  all  legal,  personal 
and  property  rights  given  to  her.  But  of  this  I  shall 
speak  in  other  chapters  of  this  book. 


TIL 

THE  FAMILY. 

Monogamy  is  in  present  times  generally  prevalent  in 
the  entire  civilized  world.  The  monogamian  family 
gradually  and  slowly  grew  out  of  the  Syndiasmian.  It 
is  based  upon  exclusive  cohabitation  between  one  man 
and  one  woman,  theoretically  for  life.  According  to 
Morgan's  hypothesis,  it  owes  its  existence  to  the  wish  of 
establishing  paternity  with  certainty  for  purposes  of  in- 
heritance. As  I  said  before,  I  do  not  fully  agree  with 
this  hypothesis,  although  the  motive  of  establishing  fath- 
ership  with  certainty  may  have  been  very  powerful  to- 
ward maintaining  monogamy  after  its  establishment  and 
with  the  continued  growth  of  property.  From  my 
studies,  I  conclude  that  there  must  have  been  a  more 
direct  economic  reason  for  it,  although  it  cannot  be  de- 
nied that  there  was,  probably,  always  a  close  relationship 
between  marriage  and  inheritance.  So,  for  instance,  we 
find  in  the  Pentateuch  (Numbers,  ch.  36),  that  the  mem- 
bers of  the  tribe  of  Joseph  objected  to  the  marriage  of 
the  daughters  of  Zelaphahad  out  of  the  tribe,  because,  as 
they  said:  "Then  shall  the  inheritance  be  taken  from 
the  inheritance  of  our  fathers,  and  shall  be  put  to  the 
inheritance  of  the  tribe,  whereunto  they  are  received"; 
and  that  by  the  decision  of  the  Lord,  they  were  not 
allowed  to  marry  out  of  the  tribe.  But  we  find  that  the 
objection  was  purely  economic,  and  that  there  was  not 
a  bit  of  sentimentality  about  it.  Those  who  objected  did 

91 


92  LOOKING  FORWARD 

so  in  their  own  interest,  not  only  in  that  of  their  pro- 
geny. 

At  that  time  monogamy  was  not  yet  known,  and  land 
was  held  in  common  within  the  tribe.  The  common 
ownership  of  land  secured  to  every  member  of  the  tribe 
at  least  a  subsistence.  With  the  establishment  of  pri- 
vate ownership  in  land,  however,  and  especially  after  the 
tribal  relation  had  ceased  to  be  a  part  of  the  govern- 
ment; and  after  the  state,  based  upon  territory  and  pri- 
vate .  property  had  been  established,  existence  became 
uncertain  and  sometimes  precarious.  Every  man  had  to 
look  out,  and  establish  an  existence,  for  himself;  the 
larger  the  family,  the  more  difficult  it  became  to  support 
it.  It  seems  to  me  that  for  the  majority  of  people,  a 
system  producing  only  small  families  became  a  neces- 
sity after  the  establishment  of  private  ownership  in  land. 
We  must  not  forget  that  until  late  in  the  period  of  civili- 
zation, land  was  the  only  "real"  property,  and  agricul- 
ture the  principal  and  most  general  pursuit  for  produc- 
ing the  necessities  of  life.  The  establishment  of  the 
monogamous  family  came,  in  all  probability,  shortly  after 
the  establishment  of  private  ownership  in  land.  In  the 
absence  of  those  ties  that  made  the  members  of  a  tribe 
more  or  less  one  large  family  and  with  the'  dissolution  of 
the  nation  into  a  number  of  self-supporting  individuals, 
I  cannot  imagine  a  form  of  family  that  would  better  fit 
a  system  of  private  ownership  of  land  and  its  mode 
of  using  it,  than  the  monogamian.  The  monogamian 
famfl'y,  under  such  circumstances,  became  an  economic 
necessity. 

History  leaves  us  in  ignorance  as  to  the  time  of  the 
introduction  of  private  ownership  in  land  as  well  as  of 
the  monogamous  family.  The  ancient  Germans  are  the 


THE  FAMILY  93 

only  people  among  whom  the  monogamian  family  seems 
to  have  existed  prior  to  the  introduction  of  private  own- 
ership in  land.  But  our  knowledge  of  their  family  life 
is  very  limited,  and  considering  that  in  the  Syndiasmian 
family  people  lived  also  in  single  pairs,  it  is  by  no  means 
certain  that  at  the  time  of  Tacitus  the  monogamous  fam- 
ily was  already  generally  established  among  them. 

Theology  may  look  at  monogamy  as  a  moral  precept 
only,  but  theology  and  science  see  with  different  eyes. 
It  is  true  that  the  moral  sentiment  of  the  modern  world 
is  strongly  against  bigamous  or  polygamous  marriages, 
but  neither  the  Old  nor  the  New  Testament  forbids 
them,  and  the  modern  prevailing  sentiment  upon  this 
point  must,  therefore,  have  sprung  from  another  source 
than  the  scriptures.  Moral  views  spring  from  the  fitness 
of  things,  from  usefulness  or  necessity.  Usefulness, 
necessity  and  fitness,  however,  are  relative  terms  and 
are  subject  to  change  with  time  and  conditions.  Neces- 
sarily, therefore,  the  moral  views  of  mankind  change 
correspondingly. 

There  never  could  be  and  there  cannot  be  a  standard 
of  moral  principles  suitable  to  all  times  and  conditions. 
Moral  principles  are  always  conservative,  using  the 
word  in  its  strictest  sense.  Their  function  is  to  con- 
serve that  which  is.  The  most  tyrannical  powers  and 
the  most  vicious  institutions  have  been  justified  on  moral 
grounds.  What  sustains  an  existing  order  of  things  is 
moral,  what  threatens  destruction  to  it  is  immoral.  The 
ruling  classes  have  always  monopolized  the  dictation  of 
moral  precepts;  Because  of  the  controlling  influence  of 
economic  interests  over  human  institutions,  relations 
which  do  not  fit  the  economic  structure  of  society  offend 


94  LOOKING  FORWARD 

the  moral  sense  of  the  time,  although  no  general  con- 
sciousness of  that  influence  exists. 

Existing  economic  conditions  and  moral  principles 
must,  on  account  of  the  everlasting  evolution  of  the  for- 
mer, become  disharmonious  from  time  to  time.  Then 
follows  a  slow  revolution  of  moral  sentiment,  a  process 
of  adjustment. 

Economic  fitness  and  usefulness  have  gradually  made 
the  moral  sense  of  the  modern  world  look  at  the  monog- 
amous family  as  the  only  one  permissible  in  conscience. 

Considering,  however,  the  fact  that  all  human  insti- 
tutions are  subject  to  evolution,  have  we  a  right  to 
assume  that  the  family  is  an  exception?  I  am  not  in- 
clined to  indulge  in  speculation  upon  this  delicate  sub- 
ject, but  I  can  see  no  reason  whatever  why  I  should 
believe  that  changes  in  the  economic  forms  of  society 
will  leave  the  form  of  the  family  forever  unaffected. 
One  thing,  however,  I  do  not  fear  to  say,  and  that  is, 
that  I  am  not  inclined  to  believe  that  a  form  of  the  fam- 
ily alongside  of  which  such  a  fearful  institution  as  that 
of  prostitution  is  possible,  can  be  the  highest  form  of 
the  family  which  the  human  race  is  able  to  evolve. 

We  hear  it  frequently  said  that  the  family  is  the  basis 
of  the  state.  This  idea  is  brought  forth,  principally,  in 
arguments  for  more  stringent  divorce  laws.  However, 
it  is  not  true,  neither  in  theory  nor  in  fact.  Both,  fam- 
ily and  state  rest  upon  entirely  different  principles;  the 
organization  of  the  state  rests  on  territory,  that  of  the 
family  on  personal  relations.  While  really  the  relation 
of  cause  and  effect  does  not  exist  at  all  between  the  two, 
yet  if  one  wishes  to  establish  some  such  sort  of  rela- 
tion, then  the  state  is  rather  the  basis  of  the  family. 
The  state  prescribes  the  forms  under  which  families  may 


THE  FAMILY  95 

be  legally  established,  the  state  determines  the  legitimacy 
or  illegitimacy  of  offspring,  and  the  state  establishes 
laws  of  inheritance.  It  has  the  power  to  change  the 
laws  and  precepts  upon  these  matters  without  affecting 
its  own  existence  and  general  powers.  Upon  the  other 
hand,  the  family  has  not  the  least  power  over  the  state. 
In  a-  certain  sense  the  family  is  the  creature  of  the  state, 
in  so  far  as  the  latter  gives  legal  force  to  the  prevailing 
moral  sentiment,  but  in  no  sense  whatever  is  it  the  basis 
of  the  state.  The  theory  is  probably  an  inheritance 
from  the  times  when  the  family  was  considered  an  insti- 
tution necessary  for  the  production  of  soldiers  for  the 
king,  and  the  raising  of  many  children,  especially  boys, 
an  act  of  patriotism.  It  is  not  the  habit  of  modern 
mothers  to  display  that  kind  of  patriotism. 

I  either  misunderstand  the  signs  altogether,  or  else 
the  economic  conditions  of  our  time  have  a  destructive 
influence  on  the  family. 

I  have  a  friend  who  lives  in  one  of  the  large  Eastern 
cities.  He  has  an  extensive  manufacturing  business,  is 
a  very  careful  business  man  and  in  very  comfortable 
circumstances.  He  has  three  sons  and  three  daughters, 
all  unmarried  with  the  exception  of  one  daughter.  The 
other  two  girls  have,  since  some  time,  been  of  marriage- 
able age.  The  oldest  son,  more  than  thirty  years  old, 
travels  for  his  father's  business;  the  second  has  chosen 
a  profession,  and  holds  a  position  with  a  salary  of  tour 
thousand  dollars  a  year.  On  the  occasion  of  a  visit  I 
asked  him  why  he  did  not  marry.  "My  dear  uncle," 
(my  friend's  children  call  me  uncle),  he  said,  "with  four 
thousand  dollars  a  year,  I  am  unable  to  support  a  fam- 
ily." The  answer  was  a  sufficient  explanation,  not  only 
why  he,  but  also  why  the  others,  the  girls  included, 


96  LOOKING  FORWARD 

were  not  yet  married.  I  know  men  who  would  cer- 
tainly not  have  let  the  opportunity  escape  to  fire  a  volley 
of  good  advice  and  sentimental  teaching  upon  the  young 
man,  and  to  exhaust  all  their  eloquence  and  wisdom  to 
show  him  the  folly  of  his  position.  I,  however,  kept 
silent.  Of  what  use  would  it  have  been  to  speak?  He 
belonged  to  a  set  among  whom  four  thousand  a  year, 
was  not  considered  sufficient  to  support  a  family,  accord- 
ing to  their  standard  of  living,  of  course,  and  as  even  in 
that  set  incomes  of  over  four  thousand  dollars  a  year 
are  not  exceedingly  numerous,  especially  in  younger 
years,  marriages  are  delayed  until  late  in  life,  where 
there  is  no  preference  for  bachelorhood  till  death.  Once 
in  a  while  a  man  or  a  woman,  carried  away  by  great 
affection,  has  sufficient  strength  of  character  to  marry 
out  of  his  or  her  set  or  class,  but  these  cases  are  com- 
paratively rare. 

Such  sets  are  to  be  found  in  every  community.  The 
only  difference  between  the  sets  and  the  communities  is 
in  the  limit  of  income  below  which  marriage  is  consid- 
ered impossible.  A  certain  bank  in  Chicago  has  set  for 
its  employees  the  limit  at  one  thousand  dollars.  I  re- 
cently read  in  the  newspapers  that  that  bank  advised  its 
employees  that  those  with  a  salary  of  less  than  one  thou- 
sand dollars  would  not  be  allowed  to  marry  without  the 
consent  of  the  bank  officials  and  keep  their  positions. 
It  was  evidently  thought  that  one  thousand  dollars  was 
the  least  with  which  a  bank  employee  can  support  a  fam- 
ily and  remain  honest.  Nothing  was  said  of  an  increase 
of  their  salaries  to  a  thousand  dollars,  where  it  was  less, 
in  case  they  intended  to  marry. 

In  Bebel's  "Woman  in  the  Past,  Present  and  Future," 
I  find  a  table  of  statistics,  giving  the  number  of  mar- 


THE  FAMILY  97 

riages  among  ten  thousand  of  population  in  different 
countries  and  years,  the  latter  running  from  1873  to 
1886,  both  included.  The  table  gives  the  following  fig- 
ures for  the  countries  here  named  for  each  year  during 
that  period: 

Holland   171,  168,  167,  165,  162,  155,  153,  150, 

146,  143,  142,  144,  139,  139. 

Switzerland  152,  166,  179,  162,  157,  147,  138,  137, 

136,  135,  136,  136,  138,  137. 

Austria 188,  181,  171,  165,  150,  152,  155,  152, 

160,  164,  157,  157,  152,  155. 

France  178,  167,  164,  158,  150,  151,  152,  149, 

150,  149,  150,  153,  149,  149. 

Italy  159,  153,  168,  163,  154,  142,  150,  140, 

162,  157,  161,  164,  158,  158. 

.Belgium 156,  152,  145,  142,  149,  135,  136,  141, 

142,  140,  136,  136,  136,  134. 

England 176,  170,  167,  166,  157,  152,  144,  149, 

141,  155,  154,  151,  144,  141. 

Scotland 155,  152,  148,  150,  144,  134,  128,  132, 

139,  140,  140,  135,  129,  124. 

Ireland 96,     92,     91,    99,  93,    95,    87,    78, 

85,    86,    85,    91,  86,    84. 

Denmark   162,  164,  170,  171,  161,  148,  147,  152, 

156,  154,  154,  156,  141,  142. 

Norway   145,  153,  157,  154,  151,  146,  135,  133, 

128,  134,  132,  137,  133,  131. 

Sweden 146,  145,  140,  141,  137,  129,  126,  126, 

124,  127,  128,  131,  133,   .... 

Hungary   226,  214,  218,  198,  182,  187,  205,  182, 

198,  203,  205,  201, 

In  the  German  empire  the  number  of  marriages  for 
each  one  thousand  of  population  was  8.5  in  the  decade 
from  1861-1870;  from  1871  to  1880  it  was  8.6,  and  from 
1 88 1  to  1888  only  7.8. 

There   is   not   one   among  the   countries   mentioned 


98 


BOOKING  FORWARD 


where  the  figures  do  not  show  a  decided  tendency  to- 
ward a  decrease  in  the  number  of  marriages. 

American  statistics  on  this  subject  are  very  scanty. 
Mr.  Carroll  D.  Wright  informed  me  that  the  national 
bureau  of  labor  has  not  published  any  report  upon  the 
subject  of  marriage  and  divorce  since  1889,  the  report 
published  in  that  year  covering  twenty  years  of  sta- 
tistics of  marriage  and  divorce  in  the  United  States. 
Having  to  make  comparison  with  population,  there  were 
only  available  to  me  the  figures  of  the  two  census  years, 
1870  and  1880.  The  report  mentions  only  Connecticut, 
the  District  of  Columbia,  Massachusetts,  Ohio,  Rhode 
Island  and  Vermont  as  giving  reliable  figures  in  refer- 
ence to  marriage,  so  that  I  am  able  to  make  up  only  the 
following  table  of  statistics: 


States. 

Connecticut 

Dist.  of  Columbia. 
Massachusetts    . . . 

Ohio    

Rhode  Island 

Vermont  . . . 


Popu- 
1870 

537,454 
131,700 

i,457,35i 
2,665,260 

217,353 
330,551 

ation. 
1880 
622,700 
177,624 
1,738,085 
3,198,062 

276,531 
332,286 

Marriages. 


1870 

4,971 

1,500 

14,721 

22,459 
2,362 

2,928 


1880 

4,745 
1,623 

15,538 

27,805 

2,769 

2,607 


These  figures  show  a  slight  increase  only  for  Ohio, 
from  8.43  marriages  for  each  one  thousand  of  popula- 
tion to  8.69;  Connecticut  and  Vermont,  although  show- 
ing an  increase  of  population,  had  not  only  a  relative, 
but  even  a  positive  decrease  in  marriages,  the  first  from 
4,971  to  4,745,  the  latter  from  2,928  to  2,607.  The  rel- 
ative decrease  in  the  District  of  Columbia  was  from 
11.39  for  each  one  thousand  of  population  to  9.14;  in 
Massachusetts  from  io.ii  to  8.94,  and  in  Rhode  Island 
from  10.87  to  10.05. 


THE  FAMILY  99 

Meagre  as  these  figures  are,  they  are,  however,  suf- 
ficient to  show  that  in  the  United  States  the  same  ten- 
dency toward  a  decrease  in  the  number  of  marriages 
prevails  as  in  Europe.  There  is  no  reason  to  presume 
that  statistics  extending  over  a  longer  period  of  time  or 
a  larger  number  of  states  would  bring  forth  a  different 
result.  At  the  same  time  these  figures  are  very  instruct- 
ive to  those  who  complain  so  much  about  hasty  mar- 
riages; for  they  show  that  the  number  of  marriages  in 
the  United  States  is  considerably  smaller  than  in  any 
European  country,  Germany  and  Ireland  excepted,  where 
the  ratio  is  about  the  same  as  in  the  United  States.  It 
is  to  be  observed  that  the  foregoing  table  of  statistics 
for  European  countries  gives  the  number  of  marriages 
for  ten  thousand  of  population,  while  for  Germany  and 
the  United  States  the  numbers  are  for  each  one  thou- 
sand. 

There  is  everywhere  a  tendency  toward  a  steady  de- 
crease in  the  number  of  marriages,  and,  so  far  as  I  am 
able  to  observe,  human  nature  not  having  changed,  to 
what  else  can  it  be  ascribed  than  to  our  economic  condi- 
tions, to  the  uncertainty  and  precariousness  of  existence  ? 
The  latter  assumes  different  aspects  in  different  classes 
of  society,  but  in  principle  and  effect  it  is  the  same  in 
almost  all  of  them.  And  although  some  people  call 
many  of  the  considerations  which  keep  men  from  mar- 
rying folly,  they  are,  on  the  contrary,  frequently  enough 
the  result  of  a  high  degree  of  conscientiousness,  the  feel- 
ing of  a  duty  to  accumulate  enough  in  a  comparatively 
short  time  so  as  to  provide  for  old  age  and  an  assured 
income  for  wife  and  children  in  case  of  death,  lest  they 
be  thrown  upon  their  own  resources  and  compelled  to 
give  up  the  mode  of  life  to  which  they  are  accustomed. 


100  BOOKING  FORWARD 

The  most  favorably  situated  in  respect  to  marriage 
are,  as  it  seems  to  me,  the  skilled  workingmen.  Although 
there  are  periods  of  prosperity  and  of  enforced  idleness, 
periods  of  high  wages  and  low  wages,  yet  there  is  suf- 
ficient regularity  in  their  economic  condition  to  secure 
them  an  average  income  with  which  they  can  live  and 
support  a  family  according  to  the  standard  prevailing  in 
their  class.  If  they  remain  in  good  health  and  live  long 
enough,  they  may  be  able  to  accumulate  a  small  compe- 
tence for  their  widows.  Beyond  that  their  hopes  do  not 
go.  There  is  no  beyond  that  for  them.  In  case  of  an 
early  death  of  the  husband,  the  widow  will,  if  she  should 
not  marry  again,  support  herself  by  her  own  work.  She 
knows  that  such  misfortune  may  befall  her,  but  she  takes 
the  risk,  not  from  choice,  but  from  necessity.  In  most 
cases  she  would  have  to  support  herself  by  her  own 
work  anyway,  if  she  remained  unmarried.  So,  the  risk 
which  the  women  of  the  working  classes  take  is  not  very 
great.  I  doubt  not  that  statistics,  if  we  had  any,  would 
show  that  among  the  working  people  the  number  of 
marriages,  although  varying  with  temporary  conditions, 
does  not  decrease  within  long  periods. 

The  class  most  unfavorably  situated  in  reference  to 
marriage  is  that  of  office  employes,  the  class  among 
whom  the  young  man  with  a  salary  of  twelve  or  fifteen 
dollars  a  week  deems  it  necessary  to  wear  a  dress  suit 
at  social  functions.  There  are  thousands  and  thousands 
of  young  clerks  whose  weekly  salary  is  less  than  twelve 
dollars;  I  doubt  that  the  average  salary  among  office 
workers,  leaving  even  women  out  of  consideration,  is 
much  above  fifteen  dollars;  it  may  be  even  below  that. 
It  is  well  known  that  these  salaries,  during  the  last 
twenty  or  more  years,  have  steadily  declined.  But  they 


THE  FAMILY  101 

are  salaries,  and  it  makes  all  the  difference  in  the  world 
whether  a  man  receives  a  salary  or  wages.  Salary  im- 
plies social  position  and  social  pretensions,  of  which  the 
man  receiving  wages  knows  little  or  nothing.  Social 
pretensions  are  expensive.  An  income  sufficient  to  sup- 
port comfortably  a  workingman's  family  is  frequently 
insufficient  to  support  a  single  man  of  the  class  receiv- 
ing salaries.  And  so  it  comes  that  in  certain  classes  of 
society  one  will  find  a  large  number  of  pretty,  charm- 
ing, well  educated  women,  who  would  make  excellent 
wives  and  excellent  mothers,  slowly  but  surely  approach- 
ing the  age  at  which  the  world  cruelly  calls  them  old 
maids,  suppressing  painfully  all  natural  instincts,  desires 
and  affections,  and  at  last,  in  sheer  desperation,  marry- 
ing either  an  unloved  man,  or  burying  all  hopes  for,  and 
aspirations  to,  the  happiness  to  which  woman  is  by  nature 
destined,  and  to  which,  from  a  standpoint  of  pure  moral 
justice,  she  is  entitled. 

What  physiological  and  psychological  effect  this  has 
on  woman,  how  terribly  injurious  this  condition  is  to  the 
female  organism,  how  dangerous  it  is  to  individual  and 
social  health,  the  physician,  the  psychiatrist  and  the 
sociologist  are  able  to  tell.  Men  have  advantages  which  I 
need  not  discuss.  Reliable  statistics  show  that  of  all  the 
insane  and  suicides,  the  overwhelming  number  are  unmar- 
ried. Bavarian  statistics  of  1858  show  among  the  insane 
eighty-one  per  cent  unmarried,  seventeen  per  cent  mar- 
ried, and  two  per  cent  unknown.  In  Saxony  there  were 
in  1856  among  a  million  of  unmarried  men  one  thou- 
sand suicides,  among  a  million  of  married  men  only  five 
hundred ;  among  a  million  of  unmarried  women  two  hun- 
dred and  sixteen,  among  a  million  of  married  women 
only  one  hundred  and  twenty-five. 


102  LOOKING  FORWARD 

There  are  no  American  statistics  in  reference  to  in- 
sanity and  suicide  which  give  any  valuable  information. 
The  census  of  1880  states  the  number  of  male  insanes  to 
have  been  in  that  year  44,391,  of  female  insanes  47,568. 
This,  is  all  I  can  gather  from  United  States  statistics. 

Physicians,  lawyers  and  other  professional  men 
mostly  marry  very  late  in  life.  The  reasons  are  entirely 
of  an  economic  nature.  The  peculiar  mode  of  produc- 
tion and  distribution  of  our  times,  and  the  economic 
organization  resulting  therefrom,  have  produced  the 
peculiar  phenomenon  that  all  pursuits  and  vocations 
seem  to  be  overcrowded,  and  that  in  everyone  of  them 
one  finds  "too  many."  This  goes  so  far  that  every  coun- 
try seems  to  suffer  from  overpopulation.  Nowhere  is 
this  felt  more  than  in  the  professions.  It  seems  as  if  the 
earth  was  getting  too  small,  especially  for  the  many  doc- 
tors, lawyers  and  others  in  the  learned  professions. 
Unless  circumstances  are  exceptionally  favorable  to 
them,  they  have  to  spend  the  best  years  of  life  in  their 
efforts  to  gain  a  firm  foothold  and  a  sure,  sufficient  in- 
come, sufficient  according  to  the  standard  of  living  pre- 
vailing in  their  class. 

Perhaps,  it  would  be  in  order  now  to  deliver  a  ser- 
mon on  democratic  simplicity,  and  hurl  anathemas  on 
vanity,  luxury,  pleasure-seeking  and  so  forth.  But  of 
what  use  would  it  be?  Since  when  has  it  been  possible 
to  avert  the  logical  effects  of  conditions  and  institutions, 
combined  with  those  of  human  nature,  by  preaching?  I 
suppose  that  many  a  sermon  has  been  preached  against 
luxury,  the  preacher  wearing  a  diamond  pin  in  his  scarf, 
without  reflecting  for  a  moment  that  nobody  would  wear 
diamonds  if  there  were  no  people  unable  to  wear  them. 
For  there  is  no  more  real  beauty  in  a  genuine  diamond 


THE  FAMILY  103 

than  there  is  in  a  good  imitation.  Economic  conditions  like 
ours  which  produce  classes  that  are  so  far  distant  from 
each  other  as  the  millionaire  is  from  the  common  laborer, 
with  all  those  between  them,  must  of  necessity  produce 
different  standards  of  living,  different  degrees  of  educa- 
tion, different  tastes,  different  manners  and  different 
rules  of  politeness.  These  differences  existing,  it  is 
neither  more  nor  less  than  human  nature  that  every  one 
desires  the  contact  and  society  of  those  who  are  situated 
like  him,  and  inclines  toward  displaying  with  some  de- 
gree of  ostentation  his  superior  social  position.  The 
most  democratically  inclined  cannot  deny  the  difference 
in  the  intellectual  and  moral  atmospheres  of  different 
classes  of  society.  In  many  cases,  therefore,  exclusion 
from  one's  own  class  for  financial  reasons  may  practi- 
cally mean  exclusion  from  all  social  intercourse,  because 
one  would  not  feel  happy  in  the  society  of  another  class. 
It  is,  therefore,  false  to  call  it  folly  to  cling  to  the  attrib- 
utes of  one's  class.  We  are  not  the  creatures  of  nature 
merely,  but  also  of  social  conditions  and  surroundings, 
and  we  are  what  both  have  made  of  us.  Be  that  good 
or  bad,  wise  or  foolish,  it  is  what  it  is,  and  it  cannot  be 
changed  without  going  back  to  the  original  source  of  all 
of  it;  that  is,  the  mode  of  production  of  the  necessaries 
of  life,  and  the  consequent  mode  of  their  distribution 
resulting  in  a  certain  economic  organization  of  society. 
The  reader  will  have  noticed  that  the  forces  of  fam- 
ily deterioration,  described  so  far,  have  not  a  directly 
destructive  influence,  but  affect  the  family  indirectly  by 
preventing  marriage.  However,  there  are  circumstances 
arising  from  our  economic  conditions  which  injuriously 
affect  the  family  in  the  most  direct  way.  Most  potently 
is  it  done  by  the  substitution  of  woman  and  child  labor 


104  LOOKING  FORWARD 

for  the  labor  of  men.  The  astonishing  proportion  to 
which  woman  labor  has  grown  is  shown  by  the  census 
of  1900.  According  to  this,  the  number  of  persons  in 
the  United  States  employed  in  gainful  occupations  was 
29,285,922,  of  which  23,956,115  were  of  the  male  and 
5,329,807  of  the  female  sex.  I  purposely  avoid  to  say 
men  and  women,  because  the  numbers  given  include  per- 
sons of  ten  years  of  age  and  over.  It  is  a  sad  comment- 
ary on  our  economic  institutions,  that  it  was  found  nec- 
essary to  include  persons  of  so  young  an  age.  The  ever 
growing  desire  (call  it  economic  necessity,  if  you  choose, 
it  will  not  alter  its  pernicious  effect)  for  cheap  labor 
tears  not  only  boys  and  girls  from  the  bosom  of  the 
family,  but  also  married  women  and  mothers.  Visit  one 
of  the  so-called  she-towns  in  New  England,  where  the 
men  find  no  employment  and  tend  to  household  duties 
while  wives  and  daughters  go  to  work  in  the  cotton  mill, 
and  you  will  learn  the  effect  of  thus  tearing  apart  the 
members  of  the  family.  What  can  possibly  remain  of 
the  happiness  of  family  life  if  wives,  mothers  and  chil- 
dren have  to  eke  out  their  existence  in  factory  labor, 
if  they  leave  the  home  (and  what  kind  of  a  home  can 
it  be?)  early  in  the  morning,  return  late  in  the  even- 
ing, tired  and  worn  out,  covered  with  the  dirt  and  dust 
of  the  factory,  and  then,  perhaps,  start  with  the  prepara- 
tion of  the  evening  meal? 

I  have  no  desire  to  become  sentimental  or  pathetic, 
but  I  cannot  suppress  the  thought  that  our  economic 
institutions,  in  many  instances,  have  the  effect  of  wiping 
out  all  the  moral  effects  of  civilization,  turn  our  hearts 
into  stone  and  make  us  barbarians.  Neither  the  sav- 
ages of  Africa  nor  those  of  Australia  make  their  chil- 
dren work  for  the  support  of  life.  To  find  the  institu- 


THE  FAMILY  105 

tion  of  child  labor  one  must  go  to  Christian  countries, 
where  the  people  boast  of  their  wealth,  culture  and  re- 
finement. 

For"Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Science,"  pub- 
lished by  Johns  Hopkins  University,  William  Franklin 
Willoughby,  associated,  I  believe,  for  a  time  with  the 
United  States  labor  bureau,  wrote  a  series  of  articles 
under  the  general  title  of  "State  Activities  in  Relation 
to  Labor  in  the  United  States."  In  one  of  these  articles 
he  says  that  the  number  of  children  working  in  the  cot- 
ton mills  of  Alabama,  Georgia  and  South  Carolina  is 
estimated  to  be  about  twenty  thousand.  Many  of  them 
work  for  ten  cents  a  day,  and  he  knew  of  babies  who 
earned  five  or  six  cents.  The  hours  are  either  from  six 
o'clock  in  the  morning  until  six  o'clock  in  the  evening, 
or  from  six  o'clock  in  the  evening  until  six  o'clock  in 
the  morning.  In  Alabama  he  found  a  child  of  seven 
years  who  had  worked  forty  nights  in  succession,  and 
a  nine-year-old  child,  who  had  done  night  work  for 
eleven  months.  In  South  Carolina  he  met  a  five-year- 
old  child,  working  twelve  hours  every  night.  He  met 
many  children  doing  night  work  who  were  unable  to 
tell  their  age,  but  from  their  appearance  could  not  be 
older  than  nine,  or,  at  the  utmost,  ten  years.  Many  of 
the  children  are,  in  consequence  of  the  noise  of  the 
machinery,  half  deaf.  A  physician  told  him  that  ten 
per  cent  of  the  children  employed  in  the  mills  die  of 
consumption  before  they  reach  the  age  of  seventeen. 
The  same  physician  (he  lived  in  a  manufacturing  town 
in  Georgia)  told  him  that  during  his  ten  years  of  prac- 
tice there,  he  had  amputated  fingers  from  more  than  a 
hundred  children,  as  the  result  of  accidents.  He  found 
many  children  without  thumbs,  some  without  any  fin- 


106  LOOKING  FORWARD 

gers,  some  even  without  hands.  The  mill  is  generally 
freed  from  responsibility  for  accidents  by  contract  with 
the  parents  or  guardians. 

And  the  nation  does  not  blush  for  shame,  and  we 
send  missionaries  to  the  heathens  to  teach  them  Chris- 
tianity ! 

"The  Woman  Who  Toils"  is  the  title  of  a  book  re- 
cently published  by  Mrs.  Bessie  and  Miss  Mary  Van 
Vorst.  The  authoresses  belong  to  what  we,  sometimes, 
hear  called  the  aristocratic  class.  They  went  into  the 
cotton  mills  of  Massachusetts  and  South  Carolina  as 
working  women  and  worked  and  lived  with  the  factory 
women;  they  then  told  the  world  their  experience. 
Speaking  of  Columbia,  South  Carolina,  Miss  Van  Vorst 
says  that  the  agents  of  the  company  go  to  the  mountains 
and  hire  the  girls,  holding  out  great  promises  to  them. 
The  girls,  poor  as  they  are,  come  bareheaded  and  bare- 
footed, but  robust  and  healthy  and  carrying  their  whole 
possessions  with  them  in  small  bundles.  (They  are 
white  girls,  just  as  the  children,  spoken  of  above,  are 
white.)  They  are  housed  in  the  factory  village,  which 
is  avoided  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  like  pestilence. 
The  houses  contain  from  four  to  six  rooms,  and  are 
filthy  and  damp.  There  are  three  or  more  beds  in  each 
room,  on  the  bare  walls  hang  the  clothes  of  the  women 
living  in  these  rooms.  Most  of  the  beds  are  occupied  by 
two  persons.  Breakfast  consists  of  a  small  piece  of  pork 
and  one  kind  of  fatted  vegetable.  The  working  day 
lasts  thirteen  hours.  Miss  Van  Vorst  was  immediately 
employed,  and  instructed  in  her  work  by  a  sixteen-year- 
old  girl.  She  found  that  all  the  girls  were  chewing 
snuff,  from  the  oldest  down  to  the  youngest.  The  air 
in  the  mill  is  almost  white  from  the  many  particles  of 


THE  FAMILY  107 

cotton  flying  about.  The  girls  expectorate  constantly, 
their  lungs  become  diseased  and  they  frequently  carry 
away  consumption.  Most  of  them  can  neither  read  nor 
write.  Only  the  very  youngest  of  them  are  lively  and 
display  signs  of  health.  The  others  show  nothing  but 
mute  resignation. 

When  Miss  Van  Vorst,  after  working  hours,  re- 
turned to  her  boarding  house,  supper  was  ready.  It  was 
spread  on  an  uncovered  board  resting  on  wooden  bear- 
ers. The  seats,  also,  were  nothing  but  rough  boards. 
There  were  three  large  dishes  on  the  "table."  One  was 
filled  with  fish,  meat  and  bones,  all  mixed  up  in  an  ill- 
smelling  sauce;  the  other  with  salt  pork,  and  the  third 
with  corn.  The  conversation  turned  about  a  fight  which 
had  taken  place  between  two  jealous  women. 

The  girl  with  whom  Miss  Van  Vorst  slept  said  she 
could  not  go  to  bed  early,  because  she  was  too  tired  to 
sleep.  W,hen  sick,  she  would  stay  at  home  a  day,  but 
then  came  the  foreman  and  bothered  her  so  long  that 
she  would  rather  go  to  work  than  be  further  harrassed 
by  him.  The  girl  seemed  to  be  entirely  worn  out. 

In  the  bed  next  to  hers  slept  a  working  woman  with 
her  child.  She  was  sick,  but  said  that  when  she  first 
came  to  the  factory  she  was  quite  well.  But  those  fac- 
tories! She  thought  the  factory  had  killed  her.  "Did 
you  see  the  water  we  have  to  drink?  It  is  nothing  but 
poison;  you  can  see  all  kinds  of  color  in  it."  The  doc- 
tor, she  said,  would  not  come  to  her  any  more ;  he  could 
not  help  her. 

Miss  Van  Vorst  heard  a  pretty  girl  ask  for  work. 
The  foreman  answered  that  there  was  always  work  for 
such  a  handsome  girl,  and  then  he  placed  her  so  that  he 
could  keep  an  eye  on  her. 


108  LOOKING  FORWARD 

Some  of  the  older  women  take  their  breakfast  along 
with  them  to  the  factory,  and  sit  down  on  the  dirty  floor 
to  eat  it  before  work  begins.  All  of  them  look  dirty, 
are  unkempt,  smell  badly  and  look  haggard  and  weary. 

The  women  rise  early;  at  five  o'clock  the  factory 
whistle  sounds,  they  eat  their  breakfast  and  at  sfx 
o'clock  they  march  to  the  factory.  When  they  come 
home  after  thirteen  hours'  work,  they  are  almost  too 
tired  to  eat  and  throw  themselves  on  their  miserable 
beds. 

This  sort  of  life  leaves  them  only  one  pleasure.  It 
is  not  difficult  to  imagine  of  what  kind  it  is,  because 
they  are,  after  all,  made  of  flesh  and  blood.  Some  enter 
into  what  they  call  a  factory  marriage.  It  requires  no 
kind  of  legal  ceremony.  After  a  time  the  girl  finds  her- 
self a  mother,  forsaken  by  the  man  whom  she  called 
husband.  And  if  the  child  lives,  it  will  in  time  also 
work  in  the  cotton  mill.  The  mother?  But  it  is  unnec- 
essary tct  speak  of  her.  In  the  city  they  look  down  con- 
temptuously upon  those  women,  and  accuse  them  of 
leading  immoral  lives. 

In  Alexander's  'The  History  of  Women"  I  read  the 
following :  "It  is  the  characteristic  of  men  in  every  civ- 
ilized nation  to  treat  the  weaker  sex  with  lenity  and  in- 
dulgence; to  this  they  are  prompted,  not  only  by  the 
softer  sensations  instilled  by  nature,  but  also  by  that  addi- 
tional humanity,  and  those  finer  feelings  which  are  com- 
monly the  result  of  knowledge,  and  which  raise 
the  mind  above  what  is  mean,  and  inspire  it  only  with 
what  is  generous  and  noble.  Hence,  whenever  we  find 
a  people  treating  their  women  with  propriety,  we  may 
without  any  further  knowledge  of  their  history,  conclude 
that  their  minds  are  not  uncultivated.  When  we  find 


THE  FAMILY  109 

them  cultivated,  we  may  conclude  that  they  treat  their 
women  with  propriety." 

If  Mr.  Alexander  had  not  written  his  excellent  book 
more  than  a  hundred  years  ago,  I  would  infer  that  he 
intended  to  write  a  satire  on  American  culture.  He  cites 
Abraham,  who  bid  Sarah,  his  wife,  to  bake  bread  and 
prepare  a  meal  for  his  visiting-  angels,  and  cites  Rebecca, 
who  drew  water  from  the  well  for  Isaac's  servants,  to 
show  that  in  patriarchal  times  women  had  to  perform 
low  services.  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  the  working 
women  of  South  Carolina,  and  undoubtedly  of  some 
other  American  states,  would  not  in  the  least  object  to  a 
return  of  patriarchal  times. 

Certainly,  in  the  families  of  the  well-to-do  the  lot  of 
the  women  has  grown  much  easier  in  modern  times, 
compared  with  patriarchal  times.  But  it  is  the  very 
same  factory  which  destroys  the  lives  of  poor  women, 
that  provides  the  more  fortunate  housewife  with  all  those 
things  that  give  her  ease  and  comfort,  and  spare  her  the 
drudgery  of  the  household,  as  it  was  when  there  were 
no  canneries,  no  cotton  mills,  no  garment  factories,  no 
laundries  and  no  telephones. 

Although  I  apprehend  that  the  lot  of  the  women 
working  in  the  Eastern  sweatshops  is  not  much  superior 
to  that  of  the  women  working  in  the  Southern  cotton 
mills;  and  although,  one  may  be  sure,  the  lot  of  the  New 
England  factory  woman  is  anything  but  enviable,  yet  I 
will  not  say  more  on  this  subject,  because  it  is  unnec- 
essary for  my  purposes. 

While  the  modern  household  allows  women  much 
time  and  freedom  for  other  work  besides,  while  modern 
economics  give  women  employment  in  many  callings, 
and  the  laws  put  nothing  in  her  way  to  hinder  her  in 


110  LOOKING  FORWARD 

providing  for  herself,  yet  custom  and  prejudice  are 
greatly  against  her.  The  female  lawyer  and  the  female 
doctor  are  still  scarce;  churches,  as  a  rule,  refuse  to 
ordain  women  for  the  ministry,  and  she  must  be  indeed 
a  courageous  woman,  who  ventures  to  do  any  business 
outside  of  the  office  or  store.  Yet,  we  are  still  in  the 
period  of  competition,  and  to  hunt  up  the  buyer,  or  the 
man  to  be  insured,  is  one  of  the  most  important  parts  of 
business.  Considering  that  women  are  still  barred  from 
many  vocations,  considering  the  small  remuneration 
which  women  receive  for  their  work,  is  it  any  wonder 
that  many  of  them  see  in  marriage  only  a  haven  of  rest 
and  marry  without  choice  or  love?  And  who,  under  the 
circumstances,  has  the  courage  to  blame  a  woman  for 
marrying  for  support  only?  Under  the  stress  of  eco- 
nomic conditions  a  great  moral  wrong  is  committed. 
Families  are  founded,  born  in  deception  and  destined  to 
be  destroyed'  from  within.  The  want  of  love  on  the  part 
of  the  wife  is  soon  felt  by  the  husband,  and  even  if  both 
should  be  strong  and  honest  enough  to  maintain  con- 
nubial fidelity,  and  successfully  resist  natural  impulses 
and  temptations,  torture  and  misery  will  nevertheless 
be  in  most  cases  their  inevitable  lot.  Numerous,  how- 
ever, are  the  instances  where  the  power  of  resistance  is 
small,  and  what  the  consequences  then  are,  is  told  by 
the  records  of  our  divorce  and  criminal  courts.  Once  in 
a  while  the  tragedy  ends  with  suicide,  now  and  then 
even  with  murder. 

Marriages  of  convenience,  especially  where  the  con- 
venience is  on  the  side  of  the  male  parties  to  them,  are, 
fortunately,  not  as  numerous  in  our  country  as  they  are 
in  Europe ;  but  there  is  a  decided  tendency  toward  their 


THE  FAMILY  111 

increase,  and  we  have  our  share  of  fortune  and  title 
hunters. 

In  spite  of  all  poetry  and  romantic  literature,  con- 
jugal happiness  needs  for  its  continued  existence  not 
only  a  material  economic  basis,  which  will  assure  the 
absence  of  financial  cares  and  sorrows,  always  apt  to  pro- 
duce estrangement  and  quarrels,  but  also  from  its  begin- 
ning freedom  of  choice  on  both  sides,  freedom  from  any 
kind  of  economic  pressure  or  influence.  Without  this, 
the  family  can  never  be  what  it  should  be,  a  continued 
source  of  bliss  and  happiness. 

The  present  form  of  the  family  sprang  into  existence, 
and  became  gradually  the  generally  prevailing  form,  at 
a  time  when  property  commenced  its  career  of  master- 
ship over  man.  Its  transformation  will  certainly  take 
place  in  some  future  time,  which  will  mark  the  begin- 
ning of  the  mastership  of  man  over  property.  This 
change  of  mastership  will  necessarily  produce  new  moral 
conceptions,  a  new  code  of  ethics.  Just  as  the  present 
form  of  the  family  corresponds  to  the  moral  conscience 
of  our  time,  so  will  the  future  form  of  the  family  cor- 
respond to  the  moral  conscience  of  a  future  period. 
What  that  form  will  be,  it  is  impossible  to  foresee.  We 
are  unable  to'  see  with  the  eyes  of  future  generations. 

The  monogamian  family  was  born  at  or  about  a 
time  when  land  ceased  to  be  the  common  inheritance  of 
gentes  or  tribes,  and,  in  consequence  of  the  institution 
of  private  property  in  land,  the  ancient  communistic 
institutions  crumbled  away.  Gradually  and  slowly  the 
conception  of  individualism,  brought  forth  by  the 
changed  economic  conditions,  crept  into  the  mind  of 
man,  until  it  became  the  ruling  moral  idea  in  the  eco- 
nomic life  of  civilized  mankind.  It  became  an  immense 


112  LOOKING  FORWARD 

moral  force  with  stupendous  practical  results.  It  is 
thought  by  students  of  sociology,  at  least  by  some,  that 
it  has  nearly  spent  its  career,  that  its  effects  are  no 
longer  beneficial,  nay,  that  it  has  even  become  a  hin- 
drance to  the  further  development  of  the  human  race. 
I  believe  this  to  be  so,  but  will  not  discuss  the  point  in 
this  chapter.  If  it  should  be  so,  all  OUT  institutions,  built 
upon  the  basis  of  individualism,  will  follow  a  change  of 
that  basis.  Be  that  as  it  may,  it  is,  at  any  rate,  notice- 
able that  the  present  form  of  the  family,  instituted  for 
the  purpose  of  facilitating  the  creation  of  families,  fails 
to  accomplish  this  purpose  any  longer.  Changes  will 
take  place,  or  else  the  theory  of  evolution  is  altogether 
wrong.  I  care  not  to  enter  into  speculation  as  to  the 
direction  these  changes  will  take,  but  think  it  better  to 
leave  this  to  the  moral  conscience  and  the  prudence  and 
wisdom  of  a  future  generation. 

What  I  wished  to  make  clear  is,  that  the  family  is  a 
social  institution  first,  and  a  moral  institution  after- 
wards; that  its  form  never  has  been  and  never  will  be 
permanent ;  that  in  common  with  all  forms  in  nature  and 
society,  it  is  subject  to  changes  in  the  course  of  evolu- 
tion. And  I  further  wished  to  demonstrate  that  in  the 
evolution  of  social  forms  and  institutions,  the  mode  of 
production  of  the  necessaries  of  life,  or  in  a  broader 
sense,  the  economic  structure"  of  society,  is  of  paramount 
influence;  that  necessity  and  usefulness  create  moral 
conceptions,  and  that  the  moral  sense  of  man  has  the 
constant  tendency  to  put  itself  in  harmony  with  what 
is  recognized  as  being  useful  and  necessary  for  the  wel- 
fare of  human  society  and  individual  happiness.  Social 
institutions  no  sooner  show  signs  of  a  retrogression  of 
their  usefulness  and  of  decay,  than  a  revolution  of  the 


THE  FAMILY  113 

moral  sentiment  in  reference  to  them  begins  to  manifest 
itself,  and  their  moral  value  is  questioned.  The  power 
of  evolution  is  irresistible,  and  experience  teaches  us 
that  its  course  in  the  production  of  forms  has  always 
been  from  the  lower  to  the  higher.  Therefore,  we  may 
confidently  expect  that,  whatever  form  the  family  will  in 
some  future  time  assume,  it  will  stand  on  a  higher  plane 
than  the  present.  It  will  be  in  perfect  harmony  with 
the  future  economic  organization  of  society,  as  was  the 
group  family  with  the  communism  of  poverty,  or  the 
patriarchal  family  with  pastoral  conditions,  or  as  the 
monogamous  family  is  with  modern  economic  condi- 
tions, and  it  will  be  supported  by  moral  views  superior 
to  ours. 


IV. 

DIVORCE. 

For  the  past  few  years  newspapers  and  clergymen 
were  complaining  of  the  steady  increase  of  divorce  with 
more  or  less  consternation  and  dismay.  According  to 
American  fashion,  relief  was  proposed  through  legisla- 
tion, directed,  not  against  the  cause  of  the  evil,  but 
against  the  evil  itself.  I  do  not  recollect  of  having  read 
in  any  periodical,  or  having  heard  from  any  preacher,  an 
intellectual  discussion  of  the  subject,  going  back  to  the 
sources  from  which  the  evil  springs,  and  being  based  on 
patient  and  impartial  investigation  and  study  of  the  prob- 
lem. If  a  physician,  called  to  a  patient,  would  tell  him : 
"It  is  wrong  to  be  sick.  I  forbid  you  to  be  sick,  and  if 
you  will  insist  on  feeling  sick,  I  will  keep  you  in  a  con- 
tinuous state  of  suffering,"  he  would  act  on  the  same 
general  principles  on  which  the  virtuous  and  enraged 
editors  and  ministers  act  who  recommend  nothing  else 
but  more  strenuous  and  stringent  laws  against  divorce. 

Once  in  a  while  an  especially  wise  individual  makes 
the  startling  discovery  that  there  could  be  no  divorces 
if  there  were  no  marriages,  and  recommends  stringent 
and  strenuous  laws  against  reckless  marriages  as  a  sure 
and  never  failing  remedy. 

A  quite  humorous  contribution,  but  meant  in  all  seri- 
ousness, toward  the  efforts  to  solve  the  divorce  prob- 
lem was  sometime  ago  furnished  by  the  governor  of 
Iowa,  who  caused  the  introduction  of  a  bill  in  the  legisla- 

114 


DIVORCE  115 

ture  of  that  state  for  the  establishment  of  a  school  of 
matrimony.  It  was  reported  in  the  newspapers  that  un- 
like legislators  of  other  states,  those  of  Iowa  were  not 
content  to  sit  down  and  guess  at  the  trouble.  They 
started  out  to  investigate.  The  result  was  astonishing 
even  to  those  who  believed  they  had  made  a  study  of 
the  problem.  The  difficulty,  it  was  found,  did  not  lie  in 
any  of  the  expected  directions.  It  was  the  result,  not  of 
waywardness  on  the  part  of  either  husband  or  wife,  or 
yet  of  an  untoward  loosening  of  the  ties,  but  of  a  gen- 
eral incompatibility  on  the  part  of  the  young  couples 
seeking  marriage.  A  girl  and  a  man  fall  in  love  at  first 
sight,  and  without  considering  their  adaptability  to  one 
another,  and  without  understanding  the  responsibilities 
of  marriage,  rush  away  to  the  altar. 

According  to  the  newspapers  it  was  deduced  fronj 
the  records  of  the  divorce  courts  that  young  men,  with- 
out the  means  of  support,  have  within  the  past  few 
years  been  hurrying  into  matrimony,  and  leading  mis- 
erable lives  from  that  time  on.  The  number  of  young 
men  was  only  exceeded  by  that  of  young  women  who, 
ignorant  of  cooking  and  general  housework,  became  the 
wives  of  men  not  financially  able  to  support  them  at 
ease. 

This  is  undoubtedly  a  true  and  correct  statement. 
The  amusing  part  is  in  the  proposed  remedy,  in  the  bill 
which  authorizes  the  establishment  of  a  state  school  of 
matrimony  with  a  state  director  and  five  thousand  in- 
structors, distributed  among  the  numerous  townships. 
According  to  the  provisions  of  the  bill  it  became  neces- 
sary for  those  wishing  to  marry  to  take  a  prescribed 
course  in  the  college  of  matrimony  and  pass  a  strict 
examination  entitling  them  to  a  diploma  before  the  neceS- 


116  LOOKING  FORWARD 

sary  marriage  license  could  be  obtained.  The  course  of 
study  was  left  to  the  director,  but  it  was  known  from  the 
expressed  opinion  of  the  governor,  that  the  curriculum 
was  to  contain  a  course  in  cooking.  The  governor  evi- 
dently believed  in  the  saying,  "The  way  to  a  man's  heart 
is  through  his  stomach."  From  the  foregoing  true  and 
correct  statement  it  is,  however,  to  be  supposed  that  the 
students  were  to  receive  instruction  in  avoiding  or  pre- 
venting love  at  first  sight,  in  the  knowledge  of  true  love, 
so  as  to  be  able  to  clearly  distinguish  it  from  mere  fan- 
cied love,  and  in  sure  ways  to  overcome  financial  difficul- 
ties. After  having  achieved  an  efficiency  in  these 
branches,  the  young  men  and  young  women  were  to 
receive  a  diploma,  which  evidenced  their  fitness  for  mar- 
riage, and  then  if  they  did  marry,  they  were  destined  to 
be  happy  ever  afterwards. 

The  bill  should  have  been  passed,  if  for  no'  other  rea- 
son but  to  introduce  a  new  theme  into  romances  and 
novels.  The  struggles  of  lovers  with  hard-hearted  fath- 
ers and  mothers  who,  for  this  and  for  that  reason,  refuse 
their  consent,  have  become  somewhat  stale  in  fiction. 
Here  would  have  been,  however,  a  new  element  of 
obstruction  which  would  have  awakened  new  interest  in 
love  stories. 

When  the  human  mind  stands  helpless  before  a  con- 
dition, rather  than  acknowledge  its  helplessness,  it 
breeds  evil  and  nonsense.  Most  certainly,  there  is  a 
very  effective  way  to  prevent  divorces;  the  law  might 
simply  refuse  them.  Granting  that  the  foundation  for 
many  a  divorce  is  already  laid  at  the  time  of  marriage, 
the  number  of  divorces  may  certainly  be  diminished  by 
making  marriage  more  difficult  and  thereby  reducing  the 
number  of  marriages.  But  the  question  arises  whether, 


DIVORCE  117 

as  a  consequence,  the  quantity  of  happiness  among  the 
people  will  not  decrease,  rather  than  increase;  whether 
the  moral  status  of  society  will  not  rather  become  lower 
than  higher,  and  whether  or  not  evils  will  result,  com- 
pared with  which  the  evil  of  numerous  divorces  will  be 
quite  insignificant.  For,  divorce  or  no  divorce,  few  mar- 
riages, or  many  marriages,  man  is  made  of  flesh  and 
bone,  red,  warm  blood  runs  through  his  veins,  and  the 
sexual  instinct  cannot  be  suppressed  by  legislation,  nor 
can  love,  respect  and  happiness  be  commanded  by  law. 

When,  many  years  ago,  I  entered  into  the  practice 
of  law,  I  made  it,  in  a  sort  of  moral  enthusiasm,  a  rule, 
when  a  party  wished  to  employ  me  for  the  purpose  of 
getting  a  divorce,  to  try  to  effect  a  reconciliation.  In 
several  cases  I  succeeded,  or  thought,  at  least,  that  I  had 
succeeded,  when,  to  my  utter  dismay,  I  found  afterwards 
that  the  parties  had  employed  other  lawyers  and  were 
divorced.  It  set  me  to  thinking,  and  I  came  to  the  con- 
clusion that  there  is  far  greater  responsibility  in  playing 
providence  than  in  acceding  to  the  wishes  of  clients. 
And  finally  experience  taught  me  that  the  resolution 
and  the  process  of  divorce,  in  ninety-nine  out  of  a  hun- 
dred cases,  produce  so  much  heart-rending  agony  that 
people  would  not  resort  to  it,  if  in  their  misery  they 
could  find  relief  somewhere  else. 

I  am  not  in  possession  of  any  comparative  statistics, 
but  I  am  willing  to  admit  that  the  number  of  divorces 
in  America  is  considerably  larger  than  in  Europe.  To 
ascribe  it  to  a  lower  state  of  morality,  or  a  want  of  relig- 
ious sentiment,  or  a  lower  degree  of  consciousness  of 
duty,  would  be  a  great  error.  I  believe  that  in  intel- 
lectual and  moral  qualities,  Americans  compare  favor- 
ably with  any  other  nation.  I  would  rather  ascribe  it 


118  LOOKING  FORWARD 

to  the  superior  democratical  sentiment  prevailing  in  the 
American  people,  so  that  the  influence  of  caste-preju- 
dice is  smaller,  that  women  are  less  willing  to  suffer 
brutalities  from  husbands,  and  have  a  higher  regard  for 
themselves;  reasons  which  I  consider  anything  but 
deplorable. 

Marriage  is,  by  American  law,  considered  a  civil  con- 
tract and  up  to  the  sixth  century  it  was  not  in  the  Chris- 
tian world  held  to  be  anything  else.  Prior  to  that  time 
it  was  not  considered  that  there  was  any  religious  ele- 
ment in  it,  church  and  clergy  had  nothing  to  do  with  it, 
and  the  scriptures  contain  nothing  which  stamps  it  with 
a  religious  character.  There  was  then  no  necessity  for 
the  law  to  declare  marriage  a  civil  contract,  because  it 
had  never  been  thought  to  be  anything  else.  Beginning, 
however,  in  the  sixth  century,  the  church  found  it  con- 
venient, or  necessary  for  its  purposes,  to  force  into  mar- 
riage the  element  of  religion,  and  in  the  seventh  century 
it  was  by  the  council  of  Trent  declared  a  sacrament. 
Prior  to  the  sixth  century  the  clergy  had  nothing  what- 
ever to  do  with  tying  the  marriage  knot.  More  than  a 
thousand  years  afterward,,  government  again  commenced 
to  consider  marriage  a  civil  contract  only,  and  to  dis- 
regard the  religious  element,  artificially  infused  into  it 
by  the  church.  Many  if  not  most  of  the  European  gov- 
ernments are  in  advance  of  us  in  this  respect  and  recog- 
nize only  solemnization  of  marriage  before  a  civil  officer, 
without  taking  any  knowledge  whatsoever  of  religious 
ceremonies  or  solemnization  by  a  minister,  leaving  that 
altogether  to  the  sentiment  or  conscience  of  the  parties. 

It  is  a  general  maxim  of  law  that  a  contract,  volun- 
tarily entered  into,  may  also  be  voluntarily  dissolved  by 
the  parties  to  it.  It  may,  however,  be  admitted  at  once, 


DIVORCE  119 

that  so  far  as  the  dissolution  of  the  marriage  contract  is 
concerned,  the  economic  conditions  of  to-day,  the  guard- 
ing of  property  interests,  and  the  protection  of  the  wife 
and  the  children,  make  the  interference  of  the  law  in 
many  cases  a  necessity.  But  farther  than  considering 
the  material  interests  of  the  parties  neither  courts  nor 
lawmakers  should  go.  Moral  or  religious  scruples 
against  divorce  generally  should  not  weigh  upon  them. 
These  are  matters  of  conscience  entirely  foreign  to  the 
nature  of  a  valid  civil  contract,  and  entirely  within  the 
province  of  individual  judgment.  Those  who  conscien- 
tiously believe  that  there  is  a  religious  element  in  mar- 
riage and  divorce  and  those  who  consider  marriage  a 
civil  contract  pure  and  simple  shall  be  equally  free  to 
act  according  to  their  belief  and  conscience.  In  an  age 
of  religious  freedom  government  and  law  should  have 
absolutely  nothing  to  do  with  that  side  of  the  question, 
and  should  not  consider  the  voice  of  the  minister  of  a 
particle  of  more  importance  than  that  of  any  other 
citizen.  It  certainly  is  the  privilege  of  the  minister  to 
judge  the  matter  from  his  particular  religious  stand- 
point, but  it  is  not  the  privilege  of  the  State  to  adopt 
the  minister's  judgment  simply  because  it  is  a  minister's 
judgment.  I  am  sorry  to  be  compelled  to  state  that  I 
am  unable  to  find  in  all  the  history  of  the  world  a  single 
instance  where  the  State  put  itself  under  the  influ- 
ence of  Church  and  clergy,  and  where  freedom  and  hap- 
piness did  not  suffer  in  consequence  thereof;  whereas 
the  instances  where  Church  and  clergy  have  sacrificed 
freedom  and  happiness  of  the  people  to  their  doctrines 
are  only  too  numerous. 

Moral  sentiment  and  law  allow    only  monogamous 
marriages.    So  far,  so  good.    As  there  can  be  no  abso- 


120  LOOKING  FORWARD 

lute  freedom  of  contract,  it  is  right  and  proper  to  guard 
the  interests  of  society  by  proper  legislation  in  not  allow- 
ing persons  not  considered  of  discretion,  such  as  minors, 
insane  persons,  and  idiots  and  also  persons  within  cer- 
tain degrees  of  blood  relationship  to  enter  into  the  con- 
tract of  marriage.  But,  provided  persons  are  within  the 
law,  what  possible  interest  can  the  state  or  society  have 
in  the  conclusion  or  dissolution  of  the  contract  of  mar- 
riage ?  Of  what  difference  can  it  be  to  the  state  or  soci- 
ety whether  A  is  married  to  B,  or  to  C,  or  to  D,  and 
of  what  benefit  or  injury  can  it  be  to  the  State  or  soci- 
ety whether  A  and  B  remain  in  a  state  of  marriage  or 
not?  Of  course,  it  is  of  interest  to  the  community  that 
the  divorced  wife  and  her  children  be  properly  sup- 
ported by  the  husband  and  father  and  do  not  become  a 
burden  on  the  community.  But  if  the  husband  and 
father  has  property,  the  court  can  enforce  such  support, 
if  he  has  no  property  but  has  a  conscience,  he  will  sup- 
port them  of  his  own  free  will,  as  well  as  he  can,  and 
if  he  has  neither  property  nor  conscience,  the  law  is 
powerless  with  or  without  divorce.  Any  punishment 
meted  out  to  a  conscienceless  husband  and  father  will  not 
buy  a  morsel  of  bread  for  the  abandoned  family.  What 
rational  ground  then  exists .  for  the  state  to  interfere, 
except  so  far  as  it  is  necessary  for  it  to  become  the  arbi- 
ter between  the  parties  in  reference  to  matters  of  prop- 
erty and  the  custody  of  their  children,  if  they  are  unable 
to  agree  upon  these  points? 

Certainly,  as  no  contract  can  be  dissolved  without 
the  consent  of  all  the  parties  to  it,  so  it  is  right  and 
proper  that  the  marriage  contract  cannot  be  dissolved 
by  either  one  of  the  parties  without  the  consent  of  the 
other,  and  that  only  the  law  can  do  it  upon  proof  of  a 


DIVORCE  121 

breach  of  its  conditions.  But  by  what  shall  the  law  be 
guided?  Shall  it  be  guided  by  the  doctrines  of  a  relig- 
ious body?  Or  by  a  standard  of  morals  set  up  by  one 
or  more  churches  and  generally  based  on  religious  doc- 
trines? Or  shall  the  law-maker  advance  his  own  perso- 
nal religious  doctrines  or  moral  views?  I  am  of  the 
opinion  that  if  the  state  has  no  material  interest  in  the 
matter,  only  humane  considerations  and  the  interests 
and  welfare  of  the  parties  concerned,  should  prevail. 

Granted  that  the  marriage-bond  is  sacred,  whether 
considered  so  in  a  religious,  poetical  or  sentimental 
sense,  it  seems  to  me  that  with  the  loss  of  mutual  love, 
affection  and  respect,  all  sanctity  of  the  marriage-tie  is 
gone.  W;ith  love  and  esteem  the  marriage  state  is  para- 
dise and  bliss,  without  them  it  is  torture  and  barren  of 
anything  that  is  good.  Love  and  esteem,  however,  can- 
not be  made  to  appear  and  disappear  at  will.  What  is 
more  humane,  to  compel  husband  and  wife  who  have 
ceased  to  love  and  respect  each  other,  to  continue  in  a 
state  of  marriage,  in  which  case  the  want  of  love  must 
necessarily  grow  into  hatred,  or  to  allow  them  to  sepa- 
rate? What  kind  of  morality  must  necessarily  result 
from  a  union  which  is  no  longer  based  on  those 
affections  the  existence  of  which  alone  justifies  mar- 
riage and  lifts  the  attraction  between  human  beings 
of  different  sex  so  far  above  animal  instinct?  Those, 
who  in  consequence  of  their  social  position,  are  accus- 
tomed to  the  rules  of  conduct  of  polite  society  take  care 
not  to  show  the  world  their  actual  state  of  feeling,  and 
use  their  trained  power  of  self-control  to  suppress  pas- 
sionate outbreaks  of  anger,  at  least  in  the  presence  of 
others,  especially  their  children.  But  their  whole  life 
is  one  of  hypocrisy  and  sham,  no  amount  of  care  can 


122  LOOKING  FORWARD 

prevent  the  children  from  feeling  instinctively  the  ab- 
sence of  affection  between  their  parents,  and  there  is  in 
such  a  family  a  general  void  of  sunshine  and  happiness. 
But  among  those  who  do  not  move  in  social  circles 
where  one  learns  self-control  in  one's  conduct,  such  a 
condition  is  very  likely  to  lead  to  acts  of  brutality.  But 
in  either  case  it  is  the  wife  who  suffers  most.  Being 
the  weaker  of  the  two,  and  being,  from  the  nature  of 
her  sex,  less  in  a  condition  to  seek  outside  of  the  family 
compensation  for  what  the  family  refuses  her,  her  life 
is  one  of  misery.  In  a  family  like  that,  the  home  is 
permeated  by  an  atmosphere  of  impurity,  and  nothing 
can  contribute  more  to  the  happiness  of  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  family  than  a  clean  and  honest  separation, 
making  possible  for  the  husband  as  well  as  for  the  wife 
a  clean  and  honest  life.  Can  the  moral  status  of  society 
lose  thereby?  Is  it  not  enough  that  social  prejudices  and 
financial  considerations  prevent  frequently  a  separation, 
why  should  the  law,  and  why  should  doctrinaires  com- 
pel people  to.  continue  in  a  life  of  sham  and  hypocrisy, 
ending  frequently  in  public  scandal? 

Apropos  of  public  scandal :  Publicity  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  justice  is  such  a  great  and  important  princi- 
ple that  it  is  quite  difficult  to  draw'  the  line  where  excep- 
tions should  be  allowed.  But  is  it  necessary  and  can  it 
be  good  for  the  moral  status  of  society  that  in  actions 
for  divorce  the  domestic  affairs  of  a  family,  every  infi- 
delity, every  brutality,  every  transgression,  every  error 
and  every  indiscretion,  every  trouble  and  every  suffering 
be  laid  bare  before  the  world?  Is  it  necessary  to  make 
the  persons  concerned  objects  of  shame,  ridicule  and 
scandal?  Could  not,  at  least,  the  newspapers  adopt  dif- 
ferent ethics  and  restrain  themselves  in  the  publication 


BMIMPT  OMffimOGT  MB  Sttl 


DIVORCE  123 

of  complaints  for  divorce  and  the  evidence  given  in  di- 
vorce trials?  If  the  law  should  be  powerless  in  this  in- 
stance, should  it  not  be  possible  for  a  sense  of  decency, 
delicacy  and  kind  consideration  to  manifest  itself  among 
journalists  and  readers  alike? 

I  confess  I  am  unable  to  see  what  society  profits  or 
what  public  morals  gain  by  not  permitting  parties  who 
are  unhappily  married  and  wish  to  dissolve  their  union, 
to  do  it  quietly  and  decently  by  a  method  as  simple  as 
that  of  marriage  instead  of  compelling  them  to  ventilate 
their  troubles  before  the  eyes  of  the  public  and  make 
their  marital  relations  and  domestic  affairs  a  subject  of 
common  gossip  to  the  disgust  of  every  decent  person 
and  the  pleasure  only  of  the  scandal-monger.  If  they 
were  able  to  agree  between  themselves  in  all  matters 
concerning  them,  where  is  the  advantage  to  society  and 
morality  of  disregarding  the  delicacy  of  feeling  of  the 
parties,  of  outraging  their  sensibilities  and  of  forcing 
them  to  either  confess  or  be  convicted  of  some  act  of 
brutality,  meanness  or  impropriety  before  allowing  them 
to  do  what  they  consider  necessary  for  their  happiness 
and  from  which  nobody  else  suffers,  or  which  is  nobody 
else's  concern?  Whatever  one  may  think  of  Hester 
Prynne,  standing  on  the  pillory  with  her  babe  in  her 
arms,  she  certainly  is  an  object  of  pity;  but  the  sancti- 
monious officials  who  put  her  there,  and  the  gossips  star- 
ing at  her  and  wagging  their  tongues,  are  absolutely 
repulsive. 

What  moral  right  has  society  to  intrude  as  judge 
between  husband  and  wife  where  they  do  not  need  a 
judge?  Why  should  society  in  the  form  of  law  and 
justice  meddle  with  the  private  affairs  of  parties  who 
do  not  seek  an  arbiter  between  them?  Is  there  anyone 


124  LOOKING  FORWARD 

good  and  holy  enough  to  force  upon  another  his  own 
views  of  goodness? 

It  is  sad  enough  that  frequently  parties  cannot,  for 
economic  or  other  reasons,  agree  upon  a  settlement  of 
their  affairs  and  must  call  for  it  upon  the  Court.  But 
where  such  is  not  the  case,  I  ask  in  the  name  of  moral- 
ity, in  the  name  of  propriety,  in  the  name  of  practical 
utility,  in  the  name  of  anything  that  is  just,  good  and 
noble,  with  what  justification  the  private  affairs  of  par- 
ties are  made  a  public  concern,  and  why  we  should,  in 
this  advanced  and  enlightened  age  of  democratical  senti- 
ment and  civil  and  religious  liberty,  put  people  who  wish 
to  dissolve  an  unhappy  marriage-bond  upon  the  pillory 
of  a  public  trial? 

We  hear  so  many  declamations  against  rash  and 
hasty  marriages.  But  they  seem  to  me  to  be  coming 
from  persons  who  have  forgotten  that  there  was  a  time 
when  they  were  young  themselves  and  that  it  is  the 
privilege  of  youth  to  love  ardently,  passionately  and  un- 
reasonably. It  will  be  difficult  to  find  young  lovers  in 
whose  mind  a  doubt  of  the  everlastingness  of  their  love 
could  be  raised.  They  think  they  know  each  other  thor- 
oughly, but  are,  of  course,  mistaken;  for  perfect  knowl- 
edge of  each  other  is  impossible  without  the  close  per- 
sonal union  of  marriage  and  the  community  of  duties 
and  interests  of  the  family.  Love  would  not  be  love  were 
it  always  reflecting,  investigating,  hesitating,  examining. 
Besides,  certain  characteristics  in  man  or  woman  may  be 
awakened  into  life  only  under  certain  circumstances  such 
as  sickness,  misfortune  or  business  reverses,  and  a 
woman's  character  may  be  entirely  changed  by  mother- 
hood, so  that  the  discovery  of  not  being  well  mated, 
always  comes,  and  generally  cannot  but  come,  too  late. 


DIVORCE  125 

The  charge  of  hasty  and  rash  marriage  is,  in  this  respect 
at  least,  unreasonable  and  unjust,  if  not  silly. 

More  justice  and  reason  seems  to  be  in  the  charge 
that  young  people  rush  into  marriage  without  seriously 
considering  the  ability  of  supporting  a  family.  But  are 
they  really  so  much  to  be  blamed  even  for  this?  Is  it 
altogether  their  fault?  Is  not  day  after  day,  in  speech 
and  print,  the  lie  pounded  into  the  young  man  that  by 
industry  and  economy  every  man  may  if  not  exactly 
become  rich,  at  least  get  along  comfortably?  Will  you 
blame  the  young  man  if  he  believes  it,  if  he,  knowing 
himself  to  be  industrious  and  economical,  trusts  to  those 
who  preach  daily  of  the  excellence  of  our  economic  in- 
stitutions, of  the  possibilities  which  they  offer,  of  the 
many  opportunities  only  waiting  for  somebody  to  make 
use  of  them,  and,  confident  of  his  own  good  intentions 
and  his  ability,  charges  himself  with  the  burden  of  pro- 
viding for  the  woman  he  loves  and  with  the  responsi- 
bilities of  fatherhood?  Really,  who  stands  higher 
morally,  the  young  man  who  thus  courageously  enters 
into  the  struggle  or  the  one  who  does  not  consider  an 
income  of  three,  four,  or  five  thousand  dollars  sufficient 
for  the  support  of  a  family,  and  therefore  remains 
unmarried,  thereby  condemning  some  young  woman  to 
maidenhood  for  life? 

It  seems  to  me  that  nobody  has  a  right  to  complain 
of  rash  and  ill-advised  marriage,  but  everybody  should 
treat  with  commiseration  those  who  have  chosen  unfor- 
tunately. One  should  never  judge  another  solely  from 
one's  own  standpoint,  but  should  try  to  imagine  one's 
self  in  the  place  of  the  other.  An  old  German  proverb 
says :  To  understand  everything  means  to  forgive  every- 
thing. 


126  LOOKING  FORWARD 

Undoubtedly  cases  are  not  rare,  in  which  young 
women  marry  without  much  love,  and  principally  for 
the  reason  that  they  have  become  weary  of  the  struggle 
for  a  livelihood.  There  is  ample  temptation  for  her  to 
do  worse,  but  she  marries.  Sometimes  persons  of 
good  sense  and  quiet  and  even  temper  get  along  quite 
well  even  under  such  circumstances.  The  woman  has 
certainly  never  told  her  husband  that  she  did  not  love 
him;  in  all  probability  she  professed  to  love  him.  Then 
if  the  marriage  should  turn  out  unfortunate,  the  moral- 
ist will  say,  she  deceived  him  and  does  not  deserve  any 
better.  Yet,  I  candidly  say  that,  in  view  of  the  bitter- 
ness of  a  lone  woman's  struggle  for  life,  I  could  not  cast 
the  first  stone  on  her  and  compel  her  to  drag  her  chains 
all  through  her  life,  not  to  speak  of  the  other  party  to 
the  contract. 

It  is  one  of  the  every  day  assertions  of  doctrinaires 
that  the  knowledge  of  the  facility  with  which  divorces 
can  be  had,  is  the  cause  of  many  a  reckless  rush  into 
marriage,  and  that  if  divorce  were  attended  with  greater 
difficulty,  people  would  be  more  careful  in  marrying. 
This  is  an  astonishingly  absurd  reasoning,  based  neither 
upon  logic  nor  experience.  If  ever  there  is  a  time  in 
life  when  the  thought  of  divorce  is  farthest  from  man, 
it  is  at  the  time  of  marriage.  It  would  be  a  difficult  task, 
indeed,  to  find  a  single  individual  who  was  prevented 
from  marrying  by  the  fear  only  that  he,  or  she,  might 
afterwards  meet  serious  obstacles  in  procuring,  or  even 
find  it  impossible  to  procure,  a  divorce.  Likewise  will  it 
be  anything  but  an  easy  matter  to  find  a  married  person 
who  treated  his  marriage  affairs  lightly  because  of  the 
thought  that  divorce  offers  a  remedy  against  the  ills  of 
marriage.  As  a  general  rule  when  people  marry  they 


DIVORCE  127 

have  the  honest  intention  to  marry  for  life  and  their 
feeling  is  not  such  that  room  is  left  for  the  thought  of 
separation. 

Be  the  ordinary  logic  that  facility  of  the  dissolution 
of  marriage  will  result  in  an  increase  of  dissolutions, 
and  preventive  measures  in  a  decrease,  good  or  bad,  it 
is  at  most  mere  conjecture,  not  proved  by  any  facts, 
while  the  contrary  conclusion  is  just  as  logical,  but  sus- 
tained by  actual  conditions  besides.  If  it  is  pointed  out 
that  in  certain  states  of  the  Union  where  the  law  facili- 
tates divorces,  they  are  also  quite  numerous,  it  must  be 
seen  that  this  fact  proves  nothing,  because  there  is  a 
rush  to  such  states  from  parties  desiring  divorce  and 
residing  in  states  where  they  find  it  difficult  to  obtain  it. 
However,  it  stands  to  reason,  and  a  study  of  ordinary 
life  proves  it,  that  where  a  union  difficult  or  impossible 
of  dissolution,  is  formed,  it  will  result  in  perfect  relax- 
ation of  all  efforts  to  maintain  it.  There  is  an  immense 
difference  between  the  conduct  of  lovers  and  the  con- 
duct of  spouses.  The  one  is  characterized  by  the  strife 
for  possession,  the  other  by  security  of  possession;  the 
one  by  activeness,  the  other  by  passiveness,  expressing 
themselves  respectively,  in  tireless  attention  and  careless 
nonchalance.  Upon  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  natural 
probability  that  if  the  marriage-tie  could  be  easily  dis- 
solved, there  would  be  an  unceasing  endeavor  to  keep 
alive  the  holy  flame  of  love  once  existing,  and  the  bliss- 
ful state  of  wooing  would  never  come  to  an  end.  I  am 
firmly  of  the  opinion  that  the  best  means  to  accomplish 
a  reduction  in  the  number  of  divorces,  is  to  make  divorce 
very  easy.  If  history  teaches  anything,  it  is  that  free- 
dom is  far  more  productive  of  happiness  and  good  morals 
than  restraint  and  coercion,  and  that  the  straight-jacket 


128  LOOKING  FORWARD 

is  the  worst  adapted  instrument  for  the  creation  of  sound 
ethics. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  French  law  did  not  allow 
divorce  until  a  short  time  ago  and  Montaigne,  the  great 
Frenchman,  says:  "We  have  thought  to  make  our  mar- 
riage-tie stronger  by  taking  away  all  means  of  dissolv- 
ing it,  but  the  more  we,  have  tightened  the  constraint,  so 
much  the  more  have  we  relaxed  and  detracted  from  the 
bond  of  will  and  affection." 

V.  C.  Scott  says  in  his  book,  "The  Silken  East,"  the 
following : 

"Burma,  as  in  many  other  things,  is  in  advance  of 
more  reputedly  civilized  countries  in  the  status  it 
accords  to  its  women.  The  infant  marriage  and  shut- 
ting up  in  walled  houses,  the  polygamy,  the  harems,  the 
social  punishment  of  widows,  the  denial  of  spiritual 
rights  which  prevail  in  India  are  unknown  in  Burma. 
Here  women  marry  when  they  are  of  age  and  after  they 
have  seen  somewhat  of  the  world.  They  marry,  for  the 
most  part,  whomsoever  they  will  and  from  love.  They 
are  not  handed  over  as  chattels  to  a  man  whom  they 
know  not,  but  are  courted  and  won.  The  married 
women's  property  act  has  in  effect  been  established  for 
centuries  in  Burma.  In  this  country,  where  the  women 
earn  so  much,  the  woman's  earnings  are  her  own. 
Divorce  is  easily  obtained,  but  seldom  asked  for.  The 
lightness  of  the  marriage  laws,  the  readiness  of  the  Bur- 
mese women  to  enter  into  an  easy  alliance,  shock  the 
virtue  of  the  strenuous  foreigner,  but  within  her  ideals 
she  is  a  perfectly  proper,  modest  and  well  mannered 
woman. 

"She  has  failings.  Who  has  not?  Her  practice  of 
chewing  betel  is  inelegant  and  destructive  to  her  teeth; 


DIVORCE  129 

her  voice  is  apt  under  the  pressure  of  adversity  to  be 
shrill;  her  keen  business  faculties  detract  a  trifle  from 
the  romance  in  which,  as  in  a  halo,  all  women  are  envel- 
oped ;  in  old  age  she  is  very  ugly,  and  even  in  youth  her 
nose  is  stumpy,  her  lips  a  little  thick,  her  cheek  bones 
high  and  heavy  —  but  these  are  Caucasian  objections. 

"In  the  eyes  of  the  young  men  of  the  land  the  Bur- 
mese girl  is  a  peerless  creature,  and  her  influence  over 
their  hearts  and  their  passions  is  immense.  What  is 
more,  few  men  in  Burma  ever  undertake  anything  of 
magnitude  without  first  seeking  the  able  counsel  of  their 
wives." 

H.  Fielding  who  has  lived  in  Burma  for  a  number  of 
years,  tells  us  that  if  a  Burmese  girl  marries,  she  keeps 
her  name,  nothing  indicating  that  she  is  married.  She 
retains  her  own  property,  the  husband  acquiring  no  right 
to  it,  nor  to  what  she  herself  earns  or  inherits.  What 
they  earn  together  is  their  common  property.  He 
further  tells  us  that  in  Burma  marriage  can  be  quite 
easily  dissolved.  The  pair  appears  before  the  village- 
elder  and  asks  to  be  divorced.  A  record  is  made  of  it, 
and  then  both  are  free.  Each  of  them  keeps  his  sepa- 
rate property,  and  the  property  earned  by  common  effort 
is  divided  between  them.  Yet,  in  spite  of  the  simplicity 
and  facility  of  divorce,  divorces  are  extremely  rare  and 
in  the  villages  and  among  the  better  classes  unusual 
and  exceptional.  The  reason  for  the  small  number  of 
divorces  is,  according  to  Mr.  Fielding,  the  ease  with 
which  divorce  can  be  obtained,  having  the  effect  that 
husband  and  wife  treat  each  other  at  all  times  with  great 
courtesy  and  much  consideration. 

The  only  class,  in  which  divorces  are  frequent,  are 
according  to  the  same  author,  the  not  quite  unobjec- 


130  LOOKING  FORWARD 

tionable  followers  and  hangers-on  to  the  British  admin- 
istration, such  as  clerks,  policemen,  etc.  "It  is  horri- 
fying," adds  Mr.  Fielding,  "to  see  what  a  demoralizing 
effect  we  have  on  all  people  coming  in  touch  with  us." 

This  remark  is  quite  significant.  We  are  in  the  habit 
of  considering  savages,  barbarians,  or  peoples  in  a  some- 
what lower  stage  of  culture  than  our  own,  with  con- 
tempt, and  rejoice  over  the  fact  that  the  place  of  our 
birth  was  somewhere  on  the  Mississippi,  the  Rhine,  or 
the  Thames  and  not  on  the  Niger  or  Senegal.  Yet,  it 
sometimes  seems  to  me  that,  in  many  things,  half  civil- 
ized people,  barbarians  and  even  savages  are  superior  to 
us  in  morals,  that  the  everlasting,  all-absorbing  hunt  for 
wealth  kills  fine  sentiment;  that  business,  as  carried  on 
in  the  modern  world,  spoils  character ;  and  that  modern 
economics  have  a  demoralizing  effect  on  the  conscience. 
Should  it  be  possible  that  what  is  good  for  the  Burmese 
might  not  be  good  for  the  European  or  the  American, 
and  that  freedom  becomes  dangerous  to  morality  in  pro- 
portion to  the  growth  of  civilization?  Should  it  be  pos- 
sible that  the  ethics  of  personal  relations  must  suffer 
with  the  increase  of  wealth,  the  growth  of  the  power  of 
production  and  the  extension  of  commerce,  and  that 
freedom  in  personal  relations  is  incompatible  with  the 
economic  structure  of  modern  society  ?  It  seems  so,  per- 
haps it  is  so.  War  is  destructive  of  morals,  and  our 
economic  condition  is  that  of  bellum  omnium  contra 
omnes,  (war  of  all  against  all).  Business  is  business, 
that  is  the  excuse  which  one  hears  every  day  for  doing 
of  what  one  feels  ashamed,  just  as  war  is  war  is  the 
excuse  for  barbarities  and  cuelties  against  which  the 
feeling  of  humanity  revolts. 

The  problem  of  divorce  is  an  economic  problem,  as 


DIVORCE;  131 

all  our  social  problems  are.  A  final  solution  of  it  is  im- 
possible under  the  prevailing  economic  system.  It  is 
only  possible  under  an  economic  system  which  would 
make  wife  and  children  economically  independent  of 
husband  and  father.  But  as  such  a  system  would  cer- 
tainly produce  a  new  form  of  the  family,  the  divorce 
problem  would  then,  perhaps,  no  longer  be  a  problem. 
The  rights  and  customs  of  divorce  have  been  different 
under  different  forms  of  the  family,  and  as  the  latter 
corresponded  with  different  economic  systems,  so  did,  of 
course,  also  the  former.  In  the  Syndiasmian  family 
divorce  lay  in  the  pleasure  of  either  party,  under  the 
patriarchal  form  of  the  family,  as  evidenced  by  the  an- 
cient Hebrew  law,  divorce  lay  in  the  pleasure  of  the 
husband,  and  it  was  a  long  time  after  the  advent  of  the 
monogamous  family,  until  the  rights  of  the  wife  in  ref- 
erence to  divorce  became  equal  to  those  of  the  husband, 
and  until  the  wife  had  as  much  right  to  demand  chastity 
of  the  husband,  as  the  husband  had  to  demand  it  of  the 
wife.  It  being  impossible  to  foretell  the  future  form  of 
the  family,  it  is  equally  impossible  to  foretell  the  man- 
ner of  the  solution  of  the  divorce  problem.  I  am  con- 
vinced, however,  that  it  will  not  consist  in  greater  and 
severer  legal  restraint,  because  such  has  never  proven  to 
be  an  effective  means  of  reform  and  betterment  of  con- 
ditions, much  less  of  the  improvement  of  morals.  When- 
ever moral  doctrines,  as  expressed  by  law,  custom  or 
prejudice,  come  into  conflict  with  the  material  or  intel- 
lectual needs  of  man  and  his  desire  for  happiness  moral- 
ity will  suffer  as  long  as  the  conflict  lasts. 

Considering  that  the  future  form  of  the  family  will 
necessarily  be  the  result  of  a  slow  and  gradual  process 
of  evolution,  it  is  not  impossible  that  more  liberal  prac- 


132  BOOKING  FORWARD 

tices  in  respect  to  divorce  will  mark  one  of  the  early 
stages  of  this  process.  And  surely,  in  proportion  to  the 
growth  of  the  possibilities  of  self-support  for  women, 
and  their  sense  of  independence,  there  will  be  a  change 
in  the  views  in  reference  to  divorce  from  the  orthodox 
to  the  liberal. 

I  am  willing  to  admit  without  any  further  investiga- 
tion that  the  number  of  divorces  in  proportion  to  the 
number  of  marriages  is  increasing.  But  this  increase  is 
neither  cause  for  astonishment  nor  for  dismay.  Indeed, 
I  think  it  would  be  quite  remarkable  if  it  were  otherwise, 
and  while  the  fact  in  itself  may  be  regrettable,  it  is  per- 
haps, after  all,  a  sign  of  progress.  It  is  the  unavoid- 
able consequence  of  an  economic  condition  which  draws 
women  in  constantly  increasing  numbers  into  the  eco- 
nomic life  of  tne  nation,  daily  opens  for  them  more  fields 
for  economic  activity,  and  produces  in  women  a  steadily 
growing  feeling  of  independence  and  ability  to  provide 
for  themselves.  As  a  result  thereof  considerably  fewer 
of  them  are  willing  to  bear  the  burden  and  torture  of 
unhappy  marriage,  and  the  number  of  women  who  feel 
themselves  strong  enough  to  insist  upon  their  natural 
right  of  happiness  is  daily  growing.  Under  former 
modes  of  production  and  economic  conditions,  the  only 
career  which  was  open  for  a  woman  who  had  not  shelter 
and  support  in  the  home  of  the  parent  or  husband,  was 
that  of  a  domestic  servant,  or  servant  to  the  person  of 
the  employer.  Such  services  are  to  most  American 
women  so  distasteful  that  they  understand  without 
explanation  why,  when  no  other  alternative  existed, 
unhappily  married  women,  no  matter  how  great  their 
misery  was,  bore  their  misfortune  patiently  and  submis- 
sively. But  conditions  are  different  now.  Our  social 


DIVORCE  133 

and  economic  arrangements  compel  millions  of  women 
to  seek  a  livelihood  for  themselves,  no  matter  with  what 
difficulties  they  meet.  Success  is  the  hope  of  most  of 
them,  and  it  is  absolutely  useless  to  fight  against  the 
logical  consequences  of  the  self-reliance  resulting  there- 
from. Any  artificial  restraints  directed  against  the 
natural  consequences  of  existing  conditions,  must  neces- 
sarily result  in  evil. 

The  evolution  of  economics  will  produce  new  forms 
of  social  institutions,  and  moral  views  compatible  with 
the  new  forms.  B'ut  even  while  the  old  views  prevail 
we  need  not  be  governed  by  doctrines,  which,  as  we  can 
clearly  see,  are  no  longer  in  harmony  with  existing  con- 
ditions, nor  is  it  prudent  to  force  a  religious  element  in- 
to mere  social  or  personal  relations.  Divorce,  although 
always  an  individual  problem,  would  not  be_  a  social 
problem  at  all,  if  it  were  not  made  one  by  superstition, 
bigotry  and  intolerance.  There  is  a  remarkable  incon- 
sistency between  the  treatment  of  marriage  and  that  of 
divorce  by  society.  The  first,  although  being  the  far 
more  important,  is  treated  with  much  less  care  and  con- 
sideration. That  society  has  an  interest  in  marriage  need 
not  be  questioned.  For  from  marriage  springs  the 
future  human  being,  and  although  our  knowledge  of 
the  laws  of  heredity  is  very  limited,  yet  we  know  that  it 
is  an  active  and  influential  force  in  the  modeling  of 
man.  Divorce,  however,  possesses  no  creative  force.  If 
society  has  any  interest  at  all  in  it,  it  is  infinitely  small, 
and  I  believe  that  the  increase  in  the  number1  of  divorces 
is,  to  a  certain  extent,  and  irrespective  of  the  causes  for 
which  it  is  sought,  a  sign  of  a  gradual  emancipation  of 
the  thought,  that  others  always  know  better  what  is 
good  for  a  person  than  that  person  himself. 


134  LOOKING  FORWARD 

The  time  will  surely  come  when,  for  hygienic  as 
well  as  for  moral  reasons,  two  persons,  irrespective  of 
sex  will  not  sleep  in  one  room,  much  less  in  one  bed; 
when  the  same  degree  of  modesty  will  prevail  between 
husband  and  wife  as  between  strangers  of  opposite  sex, 
so  that  charms  and  beauty  will  not  lose  their  effect  by 
force  of  habit.  The  time  will  surely  come,  when  hus- 
band and  wife  will  be  as  desirous  of  pleasing  and 
appearing  beautiful  to  each  other,  as  if  they  were  still 
trying  to  win  each  other;  when  the  wife  will  dress  well 
even  for  her  husband  alone,  and  when  no  husband  will 
return  from  his  work  to  his  home  begrimed  with  the 
dust  and  dirt  of  the  workshop,  thereby  offending  the 
aesthetic  sense  of  his  wife.  The  time  will  come  when 
married  life  will  be  a  life  of  continuous  courtship,  with- 
out which  it  is  absolutely  senseless  to  expect  the  strength 
of  love  between  husband  and  wife  to  remain  unimpaired 
during  their  whole  life.  The  time  will  come  when  the 
family  home  will  be  a  sanctuary  of  cleanliness  of  soul, 
mind  and  body,  and  contentment  and  happiness  not  be 
undermined  by  care  and  crime-breeding  uncertainty  of 
existence  or  lust  of  gold.  Then  there  will  be  fewer 
divorces. 

It  is  needless  to  say  that  such  a  condition  is  impos- 
sible while  the  present  economic  system  prevails.  A 
system  which  throws  every  one  upon  his  own  indi- 
vidual resources,  making  as  a  rule  the  possession 
of  some  wealth  the  condition  sine  qua  non  for 
the  acquisition  of  more  wealth,  creating  at  the  same  time 
extreme  poverty  alongside  of  extreme  wealth,  and  mak- 
ing the  poverty  of  one  class  the  source  of  wealth  of  the 
other,  compelling  the  one  to  produce  the  other's  wealth, 
is  absolutely  incapable  of  producing  general  happiness 


DIVORCE  135 

and  an  ideal  state  of  morality.  It  is  really  a  question 
what  is  more  demoralizing,  great  wealth  or  great  pov- 
erty. Perhaps  great  wealth  creates  more  frivolity,  and 
great  poverty  more  vulgarity,  but  both  are  equally  des- 
tructive of  good  morals  and  the  happiness  of  famliy  life, 
and  equally  productive  of  causes  for  divorce.  But  far 
more  demoralizing  and  destructive  of  real  happiness 
than  either  wealth  or  poverty,  is  the  system  which  makes 
the  manipulator  of  wealth  rich  and  the  creator  of  it  poor, 
the  system  which  makes  gain  and  accumulation  of 
wealth  almost  the  sole  object  of  life.  We  may  be  sure 
that  wherever  we  find  symptoms  of  evil  in  modern  soci- 
ety, the  original  cause  of  it  is  most  always  to  be  found 
in  this  system. 


V. 

PROSTITUTION. 

"The  Social  Evil"  is  the  title  of  a  book  published 
under  the  direction  of  "The  Committee  of  Fifteen," 
appointed  in  the  fall  of  1900  by  the  chamber  of  com- 
merce of  the  city  of  New  York.  It  commences  with  the 
following  lines :  "Prostitution  is  a  phenomenon  coex- 
tensive with  civilized  society.  Barbarous  and  semi-bar- 
barous peoples  have  at  times  been  free  from  it.  The  an- 
cient Germans,  we  are  told,  tolerated  no  prostitution  in 
their  midst;  and  there  are  said  to  be  Siberian  and  Afri- 
can tribes  to-day  of  which  the  same  thing  is  true.  But 
no  sooner  has  a  people  attained  a  moderate  degree  of 
civilization  than  this  social  curse  has  fallen  upon  it;  nor 
has  any  race  reached  a  point  of  moral  elevation  where 
this  form  of  vice  has  disappeared.  . . ."  "Like  the  pauper, 
the  prostitute  is  a  creature  of  civilization,  and  like  the 
pauper,  will  continue  to  thrust  her  undesirable  presence 
upon  society." 

While  this  is  true  in  the  main,  yet  it  must  be  accepted 
with  some  modification.  For  it  is  not  civilization  per  se 
that  is  the  mother  of  prostitution,  but  the  economic  con- 
ditions as  they  have  developed  in  connection  with  civili- 
zation. It  would  be  sad  indeed,  if  we  were  forced  to 
conclude  that  civilization  will  never  be  able  to  cast  from 
it  that  terrible  companion.  Fortunately,  civilization  is 
not  dependent  on  the  continued  existence  of  the  prevail- 
ing economic  system,  and  we  may  reasonably  entertain 


PROSTITUTION  137 

the  hope  that  some  future  time  will  witness  the  death  of 
prostitution. 

It  is  certain  that  religious  prostitution,  that  is  prosti- 
tution as  a  religious  rite,  as  it  was  practiced  by  the  Assy- 
rians, Babylonians  and  other  Semitic  nations,  even 
among  the  ancient  Hebrews,  is  not  known  to  have  pre- 
vailed in  an  earlier  period  than  that  of  the  upper  status 
of  barbarism,  or  in  the  beginning  of  civilization.  Yet, 
when  .and  how  it  originated,  we  do  not  know.  From  an 
economic  standpoint,  however,  there  is  nothing  in  it 
akin  to  modern  prostitution. 

We  are  informed  by  ancient  writers  that  in  primi- 
tive Rome  and  Egypt  girls  sold  their  favors  prior  to 
marriage  in  order  to  procure  a  dowry,  and  that  this 
practice  was  not  considered  dishonorable.  (In  Japan  a 
similar  custom  is  still  prevalent.)  In  this  case  the  pur- 
pose is  proof  that  it  took  place  in  an  advanced  state  of 
cultural  progress,  for  in  earlier  stages  women  were  not 
required  to  have  a  dowry,  the  husband  rather  paying  for 
his  wife.  It  was  quite  late  in  the  progress  of  civiliza- 
tion, wihen  prostitution  became  a  vocation  and  its  fol- 
lowers social  outcasts. 

Even  if  we  did  not  know  quite  well  that  the  sense 
of  modesty  and  the  obligation  of  chastity  as  a  moral 
conception  are  the  product  of  the  evolution  of  the 
human  race,  and  almost  unknown  in  the  lowest  stages 
of  savagery,  we  could  not  for  a  moment  seek  the  rea- 
son for  the  absence  of  prostitution  among  savages  and 
barbarians  in  their  higher  state  of  morality.  Although 
we  are  apt  to  misconstrue  many  of  their  customs,  it 
would  be  absurd  to  ascribe  to  them  a  moral  sense  so 
much  higher  developed  than  that  of  civilization,  that  it 
would  exclude  the  possibility  of  prostitution. 


138  LOOKING  FORWARD 

There  can  be  no  question  about  the  moral  sentiment 
in  reference  to  prostitution.  Through  all  the  centuries 
of  its  existence  moral  sentiment  has  become  more  and 
more  inimical  to  it  without  being  able  to  expurgate  it. 
Consequently  there  must  be  a  force  in  human  society 
stronger  than  the  moral  force.  Undoubtedly  there  are 
cases  of  perversity  and  uncontrolableness  of  natural  im- 
pulses, but  such  cases  are  not  numerous  enough  to 
account  for  the  fearful  extent  of  prostitution.  .Such 
cases  excepted,  I  doubt  whether  a  single  prostitute  can 
be  found,  who  would  not  a  thousand  times  prefer  a  life 
of  decency  and  respectability  to  a  life  of  shame,  if  she 
were  not  prevented  by  the  adversity  of  economic  con- 
ditions. 

It  is  in  the  difference  of  the  economic  conditions 
where  we  have  to  search  for  the  reason  of  the  absence 
of  prostitution  among  savages  and  barbarians  and  its 
presence  in  civilization.  There  was  no  place  for  it  in  a 
society  which  had  no  economic  classes;  it  cannot  exist 
where  there  are  no  rich  and  no  poor.  The  tribal  rela- 
tions and  the  gentile  organization  with  its  communistic 
arrangements  offered  no  soil  for  the  growth  of  that 
detestable  institution.  Nor  would  the  form  of  the  fam- 
ily existing  then  permit  of  its  appearance.  The  soil  was 
prepared  for  it  with  the  introduction  of  private  owner- 
ship in  land  with  all  its  economic  and  social  conse- 
quences. 

Mr.  Alvin  S.  Johnson,  assistant  professor  of  eco- 
nomics at  Columbia  University  the  author  of  the  afore- 
mentioned book,  who  has  carefully  investigated  the  sub- 
ject says :  "In  the  first  place  there  is  a  large  class  of 
women  who  may  be  said  to  have  been  trained  for  prosti- 
tution from  earliest  childhood.  Foundlings  and  orphans 


PROSTITUTION  139 

and  the  offspring  of  the  miserably  poor,  they  grow  up 
in  wretched  tenements,  contaminated  by  constant  famil- 
iarity with  vice  in  its  lowest  forms.  Without  training, 
moral  or  mental,  they  remain  ignorant  and  disagreeable, 
slovenly  and  uncouth,  good  for  nothing  in  the  social 
organism.  When  half  matured,  they  fall  the  willing 
victims  of  their  male  associates,  and  inevitably  drift  into 
prostitution." 

"Another  form  is  closely  connected  with  the  appear- 
ance of  women  in  industry.  In  many  cities  there  are 
great  classes  of  women  without  any  resources  excepting 
their  earnings  as  needle-women,  day  workers,  domestics 
or  factory  hands.  These  earnings  are  often  so  small  as 
barely  to  suffice  for  the  urgent  needs  of  the  day.  A  sea- 
son of  non-employment  presents  them  with  the  altern- 
ative of  starvation  or  prostitution.  These  form  the  'oc- 
casional prostitutes,'  who,  according  to  Blaschko  (an 
eminent  German  physician  and  writer  on  this  subject) 
far  outnumber  all  others  in  the  city  of  Berlin.  When 
employment  is  again  to  be  had,  they  withdraw  from  the 
life  of  shame,  if  its  irregularities  have  not  incapacitated 
them  for  honorable  labor." 

"A  third  class,  one  which  is  more  or  less  typical  of 
American  prostitution,  is  made  up  of  those  who  cannot 
be  said  to  be  driven  into  prostitution  either  by  absolute 
want  or  by  exceptionally  pernicious  surroundings.  They 
may  be  employed  at  living  wages,  but  the  prospect  of 
continuing  from  year  to  year  with  no  change  from  tedi- 
ous and  irksome  labor  creates  discontent  and  eventually 
rebellion.  They,  too,  are  impregnated  with  the  view 
that  individual  happiness  is  the  end  of  life,  and  their 
lives  bring  them  no  happiness  and  promise  them  none. 
The  circumstances  of  city  life  make  it  possible  for  them 


140  LOOKING  FORWARD 

to  experiment  with  immorality  without  losing  such 
social  standing,  as  they  may  have,  and  thus  many  of 
them  drift  gradually  into  professional  prostitution." 

The  prostitute  is  the  helpless  victim  of  modern  eco- 
nomic conditions,  not  industry  alone.  Among  the  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  of  saleswomen  and  typewriters  there 
are  comparatively  few  who  receive  a  compensation  suf- 
ficient for  their  support.  Fortunate  are  those  of  them 
who  have  parents,  or  other  relatives  with  whom  they 
can  live.  I  know  of  a  large  retail  house,  whose  proprie- 
tor in  several  cases,  when  the  girl  asking  a  situation, 
said  that  she  could  not  live  on  the  wages  offered, 
answered  with  the  cynical  question :  "Have  you  no  male 
friend  to  help  you  out?" 

Undoubtedly  there  is,  as  Mr.  Johnson  says,  a  large 
class  of  women,  growing  up  in  contaminating,  wretched 
surroundings,  in  poverty  and  vice.  Poverty,  however, 
is  the  crime  of  society,  a  crime  for  which  no  individual 
in  particular  can  be  held  responsible.  Our  economic 
system  produces  poverty  with  absolute  certainty.  There 
may  always  be  reasons  why  poverty  strikes  certain  per- 
sons, reasons  which  by  no  means,  always  make  the  per- 
son blameless,  but  as  a  general  rule,  the  reasons  are 
beyond  individual  control,  and  if  it  is  not  the  one  per- 
son, that  remains  poor,  it  will  be  another.  Without  the 
presence  of  a  poor  class  the  wage  system  could  not  exist 
and  the  existence  of  poverty  is  the  inevitable  conse- 
quence of  an  economic  system  in  which  millions  are 
compelled  to  compete  with  each  other  for  employment 
bringing  not  more  than  a  bare  living.  With  equally 
unerring  certainty,  however,  poverty  breeds  vice  and 
crime. 

Equally  of  an  economic  character  as  the  reasons  are 


PROSTITUTION  141 

which  operate  on  women  so  as  to  cause  them  to  offer 
themselves  in  prostitution,  are  those  which  create  the 
"demand."  "A  great  part  of  the  population  of  a  mod- 
ern city,"  says  Mr.  Johnston,  "consists  of  young  men 
who  have  drifted  thither  from  the  country  and  small 
towns,  attracted  by  the  greater  opportunities  of  rising 
in  social  life  and  by  the  greater  degree  of  personal  com- 
fort that  the  city  offers.  As  a  rule,  the  income  that  a 
young  man  earns,  while  sufficient  to  secure  a  fair  degree 
of  comfort  for  himself,  does  not  suffice  for  founding  a 
family.  As  his  income  increases,  his  standard  of  per- 
sonal comfort  rises,  accordingly  he  postpones  marriage 
until  a  date  in  the  indefinite  future,  or  abandons  expec- 
tation of  it  altogether.  His  interests  center  almost  wholly 
in  himself.  He  is  responsible  to  no  one  but  himself. 
The  pleasures  that  he  may  obtain  from  day  to  day 
become  the  chief  end  of  his  life.  It  is  not  unnatural, 
then,  that  the  strongest  native  impulse  of  man  should 
find  expression  in  the  only  way  open  to  it  —  indulgence 

in  vice The  problem  of  masculine  vice,  it  will  be  seen, 

is  an  integral  part  of  that  infinitely  complex  problem, 
the  "Social  Question." 

Having  discussed  this  phase  of  sexual  relation  in  the 
chapter  on  the  family,  I  need  not  discuss  it  again.  But 
a  few  words  in  reference  to  the  drifting  of  young  men 
from  the  country  and  small  towns  into  the  larger  cities 
are  in  place  here.  The  rapid  growth  of  the  cities  and 
the  gradual  depopulation  of  the  country  is  a  modern 
phenomenon.  We  meet  with  this  shifting  of  popula- 
tion in  all  civilized  countries  which  have  an  extensive 
industry.  The  young  men  do  not  drift  into  the  cities, 
they  are  driven  there.  Industrial  and  commercial  estab- 
lishments locate  in  large  cities,  which  offer  to  them  many 


142  LOOKING  FORWARD 

advantages,  especially  facilities  of  transportation.  Mod- 
ern industry  requires  the  concentration  of  a  large  army 
of  workingmen  and  workingwomen  at  one  point,  so  that 
periodical  discharge  and  re-employment  create  no  embar- 
rassment. At  the  same  time  the  use  of  modern  agri- 
cultural implements  and  machinery  is  constantly  increas- 
ing, and  in  proportion  to  its  increase  the  number  of 
human  hands  required  for  agricultural  work  grows 
smaller.  Undoubtedly  the  opportunities  of  social  life 
and  the  greater  degree  of  personal  comfort,  as  well  as 
the  pleasures  which  the  city  offers,  are  a  strong  attrac- 
tion, but  not  strong  enough  to  depopulate  the  country  in 
the  measure  in  which  it  is  depopulated.  It  is  lack  of 
opportunity  of  employment  which  is  the  cause  of  the 
steady  pilgrimage  of  the  rural  population  toward  the 
city.  It  is  an  economic  cause  pure  and  simple;  the 
growth  of  the  urban  population  and  the  consequential 
decrease  of  the  rural  population  are  the  direct  effect  of 
modern  industrialism.  The  factories  locate  in  or  near 
the  large  cities,  the  merchant,  the  banker,  the  insurance 
company,  and  so  forth,  follow,  and  after  them  comes  the 
great  throng  of  employment  seekers,  many  of  whom  re- 
main unemployed  even  in  the  most  prosperous  times, 
although  the  personnel  of  the  unemployed  constantly 
changes. 

To  describe  the  moral  effect  of  this  massing  together 
of  hundreds  of  thousands  of  people  in  a  comparatively 
small  area  is  hardly  necessary.  In  the  country  and  the 
small  town  everybody  knows  everybody  else,  everybody 
is  under  the  observation  of  his  neighbor  and  under  the 
influence  of  his  neighbor's  opinion.  In  the  large  city 
the  individual  disappears  in  the  mass,  one  frequently 
does  not  know  one's  next  door  neighbors;  one  does  not 


PROSTITUTION  143 

look  after  the  private  life  of  even  one's  close  friends, 
and  a  few  minutes'  ride  brings  one  to  parts  of  a  city 
where  one  is  as  much  a  stranger  as  in  another  part  of 
the  world.  Thus,  moral  transgression  may  be  easily 
concealed  and  prostitution  immensely  facilitated.  But 
all  of  this  is  merely  secondary.  The  primary  cause  of 
prostitution  is  in  the  economic  system.  Newspapers 
may  write  against  it,  clergymen  may  preach  against  it, 
sociologists  and  physicians  may  point  out  its  dangers  to 
society  and  public  health,  lawmakers  and  police  officials 
may  unite  their  efforts  in  attempts  to  regulate  or  sup- 
press it,  it  will  all  be  in  vain  as  long  as  our  present  eco- 
nomic system  lasts.  Because  an  economic  system  which 
results  in  a  condition  of  extreme  wealth  and  extreme 
poverty  side  by  side,  in  a  condition  of  extreme  precari- 
ousness  of  existence  for  millions  of  people,  especially 
women,  and  in  a  condition  which  produces  a  steady 
decrease  of  the  number  of  marriages  by  reason  of  posi- 
tive or  relative  inability  to  support  a  family,  is  bound 
to  produce  prostitution.  Even  if  the  death  penalty  were 
meted  out  for  it,  that  could  no  more  prevent  prostitu- 
tion than  in  the  time  of  queen  Elizabeth  the  hanging 
and  branding  of  vagabonds  could  prevent  vagabondage. 
And  just  as  in  the  middle  ages  vagabondage,  as  pro- 
duced by  feudal  institutions  was  the  prolific  source  of 
prostitution,  so  it  is  in  our  times  the  cheerless,  uncer- 
tain and  generally  hopeless  condition  of  the  wage  work- 
ers, as  produced  by  modern  economic  institutions. 

A  discussion  of  the  effects  of  prostitution,  or,  of  laws 
and  police  measures  by  which  its  obtrusiveness  and  its 
dangers  may  be  lessened,  is  foreign  to  the  objects  of 
this  book.  The  New  York  Committee  of  Fifteen  rec- 
ommends the  treatment  of  prostitution  as  a  sin,  not  as 


144  LOOKING  FORWARD 

a  crime,  and  as  an  outline  of  a  policy  toward  minimizing 
its  evil  submits  the  following: 

"First,  strenuous  efforts  to  prevent  in  the  tenement 
houses  the  overcrowding  which  is  the  prolific  source  of 
sexual  immorality.  The  attempts  to  provide  better 
housing  for  the  poor,  praiseworthy  and  deserving  of 
recognition  as  they  are,  have  as  yet  produced  but  a  fee- 
ble impression  upon  existing  conditions,  and  are  but  the 
bare  beginnings  of  a  work  which  should  be  enlarged 
and  continued  with  unflagging  vigor  and  devotion.  If 
we  wish  to  abate  the  social  evil,  we  must  attack  it  at  its 
source. 

Secondly,  the  furnishing,  by  public  provision  or 
private  munificence,  of  purer  and  more  elevating  forms 
of  amusement  to  supplant  the  attractions  of  the  low 
dance  halls,  theaters  and  other  similar  places  of  enter- 
tainment that  only  serve  to  stimulate  sensuality  and  to 
debase  the  taste.  The  pleasures  of  the  people  need  to 
be  looked  after  far  more  earnestly  than  has  been  the 
case  hitherto. 

I  may  add  in  this  connection  that  I  have  frequently 
wondered  why  self-respecting  women  do  not  raise  an 
effective  protest  against  the  grossly  indelicate  and 
offensive  pictures  which  are  posted  by  a  certain  class 
of  theaters.  They  serve  a  mean  purpose  and  are  an  in- 
sult to  every  decent  woman. 

Thirdly,  whatever  can  be  done  to  improve  the  mater- 
ial conditions  of  the  wage  earning  women,  will  be 
directly  in  line  with  the  purpose  which  is  here  kept  in 
view.  Tt  is  a  sad  and  humiliating  admission  to  make, 
at  the  opening  of  the  twentieth  century,  in  one  of  the 
greatest  centers  of  civilization  in  the  world,  that  in  num- 
erous instances,  it  is  not  passion,  or  corrupt  inclination 


PROSTITUTION  145 

but  the  force  of  actual  physical  want,  that  impels  young 
women  to  go  along  the  road  to  ruin.'* 

Although  the  committee  makes  these  recommenda- 
tions especially  for  the  city  of  New  York,  they  are 
equally  good  for  any  other  city,  and  perhaps  include 
everything  that  can  be  done  in  the  way  of  melioration 
and  reform,  as  long  as  the  banishment  of  the  evil  is  an 
impossibility. 


VI. 

THE  STATE. 

To  us  who  live  in  the  twentieth  century,  nothing  will 
appear  more  simple  and  natural  than  the  existence  of 
the  state,  so  much  so  that  few  of  us  can  imagine  that 
there  ever  was  a  time  in  which  such  an  institution  did 
not  exist.  Much  less  are  they  able  to  apprehend  the 
possibility  of  the  ending  of  this  institution.  To  them 
social  and  civil  order  has  ever  appeared  in  the  form  of 
state  government,  they  are  unable  to  conceive  of  any 
other  order,  and  the  absence  of  state  government  is  in 
their  minds  equivalent  to  anarchy.  To  the  student  of 
history  and  ethnography,  however,  the  state  is  not  more 
than  one  form  in  the  evolution  of  the  organization  of 
human  society.  It  had  a  beginning  and  may  have  an 
end.  The  student  easily  comprehends  that  at  some 
future  time  the  State  may  be  supplanted  by  another  and 
probably  higher  and  better  form  of  organization. 

The  State  is  an  agglomeration  of  human  individuals, 
located  and  domiciled  within  a  certain  territory,  under 
laws  and  regulations  having  force  only  within  that  terri- 
tory, irrespective  of  the  personal  relations  of  those  in- 
dividuals. It  owes  its  birth  to  the  growth  of  the  insti- 
tution of  private  ownership  in  land,  and  the  increase  of 
chattel  property  and  private  property  interests  in  gen- 
eral, the  protection  of  which  became  its  principal  func- 
tion. The  ancient  gentile  organization,  based  upon  per- 
sonal relations  only,  was  efficient  enough  for  the  pro- 

146 


THE;  STATS  147 

tection  of  persons,  but  was  too  feeble  for  the  protection 
of  property  interests  which  at  the  beginning  of  civili- 
zation had  become  vast,  numerous  and  complicated.  It 
must  by  no  means  be  supposed  that  the  State  supplanted 
the  ancient  personal  organization  at  a  given  moment  in 
a  perfected  condition.  On  the  contrary,  it  grew  up  by 
degrees.  It  took  centuries  of  wrestling  and  battling 
with  the  evils  of  the  time  until  the  solution  of  the,  what 
we  might  call  social  problem,  was  found  in  the  creation 
of  political  government,  founded  upon  territory.  In  all 
probability  the  solution  of  our  own  social  problem  will 
likewise  not  be  the  result  of  a  sudden  discovery  or  in- 
vention, but  rather  of  continued  successive  application 
of  many  remedies  with  more  or  less  incomplete  effect. 

The  transition  from  an  organization  founded  upon 
person  to  an  organization  founded  upon  territory,  was 
too  great  a  revolution,  as  to  have  by  any  possibility  taken 
place  all  at  once.  One  of  the  steps  leading  up  to  the 
creation  of  the  state  was  the  recognition  of  the  economic 
classes  by  the  law,  making  them  political  classes  by 
distributing  among  them  in  different  proportions  the 
powers  of  government. 

The  ancient  purely  democratic  institutions  had  dis- 
appeared long  before  the  creation  of  the  state.  With 
the  introduction  of  private  ownership  in  land  and  of 
slavery  complete  democracy  became  an  impossibility. 
Grecian  democracy,  which  we  hear  so  exultingly  praised 
by  historians,  was  really  no  democracy  in  the  modern 
sense  of  the  word,  because  it  embraced  only  part  of  the 
people.  Those  who  did  the  work  of  the  nation  did  not 
belong  to  the  "demos,"  that  is  the  people,  but  were 
property.  So  it  was  with  the  "populus  romanus."  Slaves 
and  those  belonging  to  subjected  tribes  or  nations  be- 


148  IvOOKING  FORWARD 

came  no  part  of  the  ruling  tribe  and  were  accorded  no 
civil  rights  in  the  state  for  a  long  time. 

The  state  started  out  with  political  classes  already 
existing,  their  creation  was  a  step  preparatory  to  its  own 
creation.  The  economic  class  is  not  like  the  political 
class  the  manifestation  of  the  human  will,  it  is  the  crea- 
ture of  conditions.  Whenever  and  wherever  the  eco-- 
nomic  conditions  are  of  such  a  nature  that  they  create 
differences  of  wealth,  those  possessing  great  wealth 
grow  into  power  and  influence  by  the  mere  operation  of 
conditions,  whereafter  by  the  mere  effect  of  human 
nature,  they  use  their  power  and  influence  toward  pre- 
serving the  institutions  from  which  they  derive  both 
wealth  and  power.  They  shape  legislation  in  their  own 
favor  and  create  political  classes  by  recognizing  the  eco- 
nomic classes.  The  economic  class  is  the  fundamental 
basis  of  the  political  class.  Whenever  an  economic  class 
receives  governmental  prerogatives  by  legislation,  it 
becomes  a  political  class. 

In  England,  the  political  classes  were  called  states, 
in  France  etats,  in  Germany  Stande.  "The  lay  part  of 
his  majesty's  subjects,  or  such  as  are  not  comprehended 
under  the  denomination  of  clergy,  may  be  divided,"  says 
Blackstone,  "into  three  distinct  states,  the  civil,  the  mil- 
itary, and  the  maritime.  The  civil  state  consists  of 
the  nobility  and  the  commonalty.  The  nobility  consists 
of  dukes,  marquesses,  earls,  viscounts  and  barons,"  the 
commonalty  of  knights  of  the  garter  (and  some  other 
kinds  of  knights),  esquires,  yeomen,  tradesmen  and  so 
forth. 

Already  in  the  mythical  time  of  Theseus,  long  before 
the  establishment  of  the  Athenian  state,  the  Athenians 
were  divided  into  three  classes,  the  Eupatridae  or  "well 


THE;  STATE  149 

born,"  the  Geomori  or  husbandmen  and  the  Demiurgi 
or  artisans,  with  the  rights  and  powers  of  each  well 
defined.  But  under  Solon  a  new  division  was  made,  not 
according  to  callings,  but  according  to  property  owned. 
The  people  were  divided  into  four  classes  according  to 
the  measure  of  their  wealth;  each  class  was  invested 
with  certain  powers,  and  upon  each  were  imposed  cer- 
tain obligations.  Of  these  four  classes,  those  only 
belonging  to  the  first  were  eligible  to  the  high  offices, 
the  others  performed  different  grades  of  military  ser- 
vice, and  were  eligible  to  minor  offices.  .Military  ser- 
vices in  those  times  were  considered  more  of  a  privilege 
than  a  duty,  only  freemen  being  allowed  to  bear  arms. 
To  the  first  class,  called  "Pentakosiomedimnoi"  (500- 
measure-men)  belonged  those  who  harvested  at  least 
five  hundred  measures  (medimnoi)  of  barley  or  a  quan- 
tity of  oil  or  wine  of  the  same  value,  which  was  esti- 
mated equal  to  a  taxing  capital  of  six  thousand 
drachms.  To  the  second  class  belonged  those  harvesting 
from  three  hundred  to  five  hundred  measures  of  barley, 
considered  equivalent  to  a  capital  of  thirty-six  hundred 
drachms;  they  were  called  Hippeis  ('knights,  horsemen). 
The  third  class,  the  Zeugitai,  harvested  from  a  hundred 
and  fifty  to  three  hundred  measures  of  barley  and  pos- 
sessed a  team  of  mules;  eighteen  hundred  drachms  was 
considered  the  value  of  their  possessions;  the  fourth 
class,  the  Thetes  had  a  yield  of  less  than  one  hundred 
and  fifty  measures.  The  division  into  districts  of  the 
Athenian  territory  followed  soon  after  by  the  legisla- 
tion of  Cleisthenes. 

Rome  entered  upon  its  state  career  in  a  quite  similar 
manner.  By  the  legislation,  known  as  that  of  Servius 
Tullius  in  the  sixth  century  before  Christ,  and  very  soon 


150  LOOKING  FORWARD 

after  the  legislation  of  Solon  in  Attica,  the  people  were 
divided  into  five  classes,  and  the  city  was  divided  into 
districts  for  governmental  purposes.  The  division  into 
classes  was  made  according  to  the  value  of  their  property, 
and  each  class  was  possessed  of  a  certain  number  of 
votes  in  the  popular  assembly.  The  people  voted  by 
centuries,  each  century  having  one  vote.  The  number 
of  centuries,  of  which  there  were  altogether  one  hun- 
dred and  ninety-three,  was  arbitrarily  fixed  for  each 
class,  without  regard  to  the  actual  number  of  members, 
and  it  was  so  arranged  that  the  wealthiest  class  had  the 
largest  number  of  centuries  and  a  majority  of  all  the 
votes. 

The  first  class  consisted  of  those  who  had  a  fortune 
of  one  hundred  thousand  aces,  equal  to  about  sixteen 
hundred  dollars,  and  formed,  together  with  eighteen 
centuries  of  equites,  or  heavily  armed  horsemen,  ninety- 
eight  centuries;  they  had  that  many  votes  out  of  one 
hundred  and  ninety-three.  The  second  class,  with  a  for- 
tune of  seventy-five  thousand  aces,  counted  twenty 
centuries ;  the.  third,  to  which  belonged  those  with  a  for- 
tune of  fifty  thousand  aces,  counted  also  twenty  centu- 
ries; the  fifth  with  twelve  thousand  five  hundred  aces 
was  divided  into  thirty  centuries.  All  these  centuries 
had  to  serve  in  war  and  provide  for  their  own  arma- 
ments, which  were  according  to  the  class  of  different 
character.  To  the  second  class  belonged  also  two  cent- 
uries of  artisans;  namely,  sword-smiths  and  carpenters, 
and  to  the  fourth  class  belonged  two  centuries  of  horn- 
blowers  and  trumpeters.  The  rest  of  the  people,  called 
proletarians  (possessors  of  children),  all  of  them  to- 
gether formed  one  century,  had  consequently  only  one 


THE  STATE  151 

vote  in  the  popular  assembly,  and  neither  paid  taxes, 
nor  served  in  war. 

The  figures  show  that  fortunes  were  small,  com- 
pared with  those  of  our  times,  and  the  valuations 
according  to  the  yield  in  barley,  oil  or  wine  are  instruct- 
ive in  reference  to  what  the  principal  occupations  were. 

In  a  certain  sense  new  legislation  is  always  the  rec- 
ognition of  already  existing  conditions.  It  is  not  to  be 
supposed  that  either  the  legislation  of  Solon,  or  that  of 
Servius  Tullius  had  been  possible,  if  wealth  had  not  al- 
ready had  gradually  and  steadily  gained  for  its  owners 
so  much  power  and  influence  that  the  new  order  did  not 
materially  change  the  prevalent  conditions,  but  only 
gave  legal  sanction  to  the  more  subtle  effect  of  condi- 
tions, and  brought  order  into  chaos.  At  any  rate,  we 
are  not  able  to  learn,  either  from  history  or  tradition, 
that  at  the  time  of  this  legislation  there  was  any  violent 
opposition  to  it,  which  would,  in  all  probability,  have 
been  the  case,  if  the  power  and  influence  of  the  wealthy 
classes  had  not  already  existed  without  such  legislation. 
Probably  the  idea  of  "noblesse  oblige"  had  already  then 
entered  into  the  minds  of  the  legislators,  wherefore 
expensive  duties  were  imposed  on  the  new  political 
classes,  and  the  military  duties  were  assigned  to  them 
with  regard  to  the  costliness  of  the  outfit.  In  Greece, 
for  instance,  the  second  class  had  to  serve  as  cavalry, 
the  third  as  heavily  armed  infantry,  while  the  fourth 
had  to  bear  light  arms. 

The  economic  classes  existed  and  obtained  political 
prerogatives,  in  Greece  as  well  as  in  Rome,  prior  to  the 
creation  of  the  state,  thereby  being  transformed  into  po- 
litical classes,  and  the  state  based  its  governmental  ar- 
rangements on  their  existence.  More  than  two  thousand 


152  LOOKING  FORWARD 

years  later  it  discovered  that,  for  the  use  of  the  power  and 
influence  of  wealth,  the  political  class  was  of  no  neces- 
sity at  all,  and  that  a  wealthy  economic  class  may  be 
powerful  and  influential  enough  to  rule  a  country  with- 
out legal  privileges. 

Although  prior  to  the  institution  of  private  owner- 
ship in  land,  and  the  use  of  agricultural  products  as 
articles  of  trade  and  commerce,  there  were  persons  of 
greater  influence  than  others,  and,  perhaps  possessing 
certain  privileges,  these  privileges  never  extended  so 
far  as  to  give  those  persons  a  greater  share  in  the  fruits 
of  labor  or  war.  They  gave  honor  and  influence  but 
not  wealth.  And  although  even  then  theoretically  elect- 
ive positions  of  chiefs  or  leaders  in  war  remained  very 
often  as  a  matter  of  custom  in  one  family,  yet,  such 
favorable  positions  were  generally  the  result  of  personal 
service  and  distinction,  and  so  long  as  there  was  a  com- 
munity of  material  interests,  and  therefore,  private  for- 
tunes could  not  be  accumulated,  no  conditions  existed 
which  could  produce  classes.  Such  conditions  arose 
after  the  establishment  of  private  ownership  in  land. 

The  political  classes  once  established,  did,  of  course, 
everything  in  their  power  for  the  purpose  of  securing 
themselves  in  their  commanding  position.  A  French 
adage  says:  I'appetit  vient  en  mangeant.  The  more 
privileges  they  had,  the  more  they  wanted.  They  owed 
their  position  to  wealth,  and  they  soon  found  that  to 
maintain  themselves  in  it  and  to  increase  their  privi- 
leges they  required  more  wealth.  Consequently  they  did 
what  was  quite  natural  for  them  to  do,  they  used  their 
privileges  to  enrich  themselves.  They  made  wars  of  con- 
quest, subjected  whole  nations,  appropriated  their  land 
and  made  the  people  their  slaves.  Land  and  slaves 


THE  STATE  153 

were  the  principal  property  in  the  ancient  world,  and 
also  the  principal  means  of  production.  Possession  of 
land  and  slaves  gave  power.  History  teaches  us  that 
in  all  times  those  who  possessed  most  of  the  things 
which  at  the  time  formed  the  wealth  of  the  country, 
constituted  the  ruling  class. 

In  slavery  times  when  slaves  formed  the  principal 
kind  of  property,  the  slave  holders  were  the  ruling  class. 
In  the  middle  ages  when  land  was  the  principal  kind  of 
property,  the  land  possessing  class,  the  feudal  lords, 
were  the  ruling  class;  and  in  our  times  the  capitalists 
are  the  ruling  class,  because  of  the  power  of  the  capital 
which  they  possess. 

In  the  beginning  the  power  was  exercised  under  the 
forms  of  democracy.  Greece  as  well  as  Rome  entered 
statehood  as  democracies.  This  assertion  may  seem  con- 
trary to  Roman  history,  but  history  has  in  all  probabil- 
ity made  a  mistake  by  calling  the  Greek  basileus  and  the 
Roman  rex  kings.  They  surely  were  no  kings  in  the 
modern  sense  of  the  word.  Although  it  is  not  quite 
clear  what  their  functions  were,  their  powers  were  cer- 
tainly very  limited.  The  basileus  and  the  rex  were 
chiefs  in  war  and  performed,  probably,  judicial  and 
clerical  functions  besides.  I  have  no  doubt  that  their 
offices  were  very  much  like  that  of  the  Hebrew  shofet, 
which  is  translated  with  judge,  a  translation  which 
seems  to  me  arbitrary  and  misleading.  For  what  we 
learn  of  the  judges  in  the  scriptures  points  much  more 
to  military  than  to  judicial  functions.  There  is  no  more 
justification  for  translating  names  of  offices  than  there 
is  for  translating  names  of  persons.  By  giving  an  an- 
cient office  a  modern  name,  we  impart  to  it  a  modern 
character  which  it  did  not  have.  The  modern  concep- 


154  LOOKING  FORWARD 

tion  of  king  is  quite  different  from  even  the  ancient 
German  and  Anglo-Saxon  conception  of  it.  The  old 
Saxon  word  for  it  was  cuning,  and  the  Anglo-Saxon 
cyng.  Its  derivation  is  from  the  Saxon  cunni,  mean- 
ing family,  or  house  in  a  personal  sense.  The  Saxon 
cunni  was  probably  the  same  institution  as  the  Roman 
gens  or  the  Grecian  genos,  so  that  presumably,  the  cyng 
was  not  more  than  the  chief  of  a  cunni,  or  gens.  From 
"Historia  Franconium"  (history  of  the  Franks)  by 
Gregory,  bishop  of  Tours,  we  learn  that  even  as  late  as 
in  the  sixth  century  the  Franconian  kings  were  power- 
less in  almost  everything  without  the  assent  of  the  as- 
sembly of  the  free  Franks.  We  are  told  of  king  Chilp- 
erich  that  he  once  claimed  from  the  booty  of  war  a 
vessel,  taken  from  a  church,  for  himself  for  the  purpose 
of  returning  it  to  the  church,  whereupon  a  common 
warrior  stepped  from  the  ranks,  told  the  king  that  he 
could  have  no  more  than  what  fell  to  him  by  lot  and 
smashed  the  vessel  with  his  battle  ax.  The  king  was 
helpless,  but  later  on  took  his  revenge. 

Gradually  the  forms  of  democracy  were  cast  aside 
and  monarchical  institutions  were  firmly  established. 
More  and  more,  legislation  was  directed  toward  keeping 
the  masses  of  the  people  in  poverty  and  making  them 
believe  that  the  little  they  had,  they  owed  to  the  good 
will  and  generosity  of  the  upper  classes.  The  evolu- 
tion of  the  principle  of  class-government,  coupled  with 
the  institution  of  slavery  culminated  in  Rome  politically 
in  Caesarism,  and  economically  in  the  creation  of  lati- 
fundia,  or  immense  landed  estates,  in  the  hands  of  a 
comparatively  small  class.  The  mass  of  the  people  con- 
sisted partly  of  slaves  and  partly  of  absolutely  property- 


THE;  STATE;  155 

less  citizens  and  non-producing  free  proletarians  main- 
tained at  public  cost. 

Somewhat  similar  was  the  course  of  development  in 
Russia  where  Caesarism  exists  to  this  day,  but  is  grad- 
ually undermined  by  the  growth  of  modern  industry, 
the  workingmen  being  the  most  rebellious  of  the  Tsar's 
subjects. 

Under  the  frightful  conditions  growing  up  under 
Roman  Caesarism,  slave  labor  soon  proved  not  produc- 
tive enough  and  with  the  fall  of  the  Roman  empire  and 
the  rise  of  German  power  came  the  creation  of  the 
feudal  state  in  which  theoretically  all  the  land  belonged 
to  the  king,  who  was  at  the  top  of  the  feudal  ladder, 
while  at  the  foot  of  it  there  was  the  great  mass  of  land- 
less and  propertyless  workers. 

Far  up  into  the  middle  ages  land-hunger  was  one  of 
the  characteristics  of  the  privileged  classes,  because 
land  was  still  the  principal  kind  of  property.  It  was  as 
late  as  in  the  fifteenth  century  that  in  England  the  en- 
closure of  the  commons  began.  Up  to  that  time  there 
were  still  many  lands  in  the  kingdom  held  in  common 
and  used  for  agriculture  and  pasturage,  upon  which 
thousands  and  thousands  made  their  living.  Bacon  in 
his  "Henry  VIII"  says :  "Enclosures  at  that  time  began 
to  be  more  frequent,  whereby  arable  land  which  could 
not  be  manured  without  people  and  families  was  turned 
into  pasture,  which  was  easily  rid  by  a  few  herdsmen; 
and  the  tenancies  for  years,  lives,  and  at  will,  where- 
upon much  of  the  yeomanry  lived,  were  turned  into 
demesnes." 

"Therefore,"  says  Thomas  More  in  the  preface  to 
his  Utopia,  "that  one  covetous  and  insatiable  cormorant 
and  very  plague  of  his  native  country  may  compass 


156  LOOKING  FORWARD 

about  and  enclose  many  thousands  acres  of  ground  to- 
gether within  one  pale  or  hedge,  the  husbandmen  be 
thrust  out  of  their  own,  or  else  by  coveyn  and  fraud,  or 
by  violent  oppression,  they  be  put  besides  it,  or  by 
wrongs  and  injustices  they  be  so  worried  that  they  be 
compelled  to  sell  all;  by  one  means  therefore,  or  by 
other,  either  by  hook  or  by  crook,  they  must  needs  de- 
part away  poor,  silly,  wretched  souls,  men,  women,  hus- 
bands, wives,  fatherless  children,  widows,  woeful  moth- 
ers with  their  young  babes,  and  their  whole  household, 
small  in  substance,  and  much  in  number,  as  husbandry 
requireth  many  hands.  All  their  household  stuff,  which 
is  worth  very  little,  they  be  constrained  to  sell  for  a 
thing  of  naught.  And  when  they  have  wandered  about 
till  that  be  spent,  what  can  they  than  else  do  but  steal, 
and  then  justly,  pardy,  be  hanged  or  else  go  about  a 
begging?  And  yet  then,  also,  they  be  cast  into  prisons 
as  vagabonds,  because  they  go  about  and  work  not; 
whom  no  man  will  set  a  work  though  they  never  so  will- 
ingly proffer  themselves  thereto.  For  one  shepherd  or 
herdman  is  enough  to  eat  up  that  ground  with  cattle  to 
the  occupying  whereof  about  husbandry  many  hands 
were  requisite." 

Thus  did  the  ruling  classes  in  England  steal  even 
the  land  of  their  own  people,  in  a  time  when  agriculture 
was  the  principal  pursuit,  and  then  flogged,  imprisoned, 
branded  and  hanged  vagabonds  and  beggars. 

Although  history  does  not  disclose  any  violent  oppo- 
sition against  the  establishment  of  privileged  classes,  yet 
sometime  after  their  establishment  the  inevitable  and 
endless  class-struggles  began  and  continued  in  differ- 
ent forms,  as  economic  conditions  changed,  up  to  and 
within  our  own  time.  There  were  periods  when  they 


THE;  STATE  157 

culminated  in  open  rebellion,  violent  insurrection  or 
great  revolution.  The  slave-revolt  under  Spartacus  and 
the  frequent  violent  outbreaks  between  patricians  and 
plebeians  in  Rome,  the  great  uprisings  of  the  peasants  in 
the  middle  ages  almost  everywhere  in  Europe,  the  insur- 
rections under  Wat  Tyler,  Jack  Cade  and  Robert  Kett 
in  England,  the  revolution  of  1789  in  France,  etc.,  arc 
specimens  of  the  culminations  of  the  everlasting  class- 
struggles. 

The  progress  of  the  world  and  the  growth  of  civi- 
lization marked  the  development  of  a  new  economic 
class,  that  of  the  craftsmen.  The  artisan  gained  in  im- 
portance as  wealth,  luxury  and  comfort  increased.  In 
the  growing  cities  they  gradually  became  a  power  and, 
by  acquiring  prerogatives  and  privileges,  a  distinct  polit- 
ical class,  which  grew  in  wealth  and  influence,  as  the 
cities  freed  themselves  from  the  power  of  the  feudal 
lords.  It  was  not  yet  the  time  when  a  purely  economic 
class  could  rule  without  privileges.  For,  the  methods 
of  production  were  still  too  simple.  The  work  was  done 
by  handicraft,  the  tools  were  few,  simple  and  easily 
accessible,  and  the  principal  means  of  production  was 
the  producer's  skill.  Gradually,  however,  conditions 
changed.  First  there  came  a  change  in  the  immediate 
object  of  production. 

Originally,  the  object  of  production  was  home-con- 
sumption. In  earlier  times  the  producer  consumed  his 
own  product,  and  an  exchange  took  place  only  when  the 
fruits  of  one's  toil  exceeded  the  producer's  own  needs. 
Man  produced  what  he  needed  for  himself.  This  mode 
of  production  was  in  course  of  time  so  thoroughly  rev- 
olutionized that  the  producer  of  to-day  does  not  produce 
that  which  he  needs,  but  that  which  he  does  not  need 


158  LOOKING  FORWARD 

himself.  The  modern  producer  produces  what  he  can- 
not consume  himself.  He  produces  for  sale  and  buys 
with  the  proceeds  what  he  intends  to  consume.  He  sel- 
dom knows  the  consumer  of  his  product  and  does  not 
personally  come  in  contact  with  him.  The  craftsman 
and  artisan  of  the  middle  ages  did  not  produce  for  their 
own  consumption  either,  but  they  produced  directly  for 
the  consumer,  whom  they  knew  and  who  was  their  cus- 
tomer. 

As  early  as  in  the  fourteenth  century  we  find  produc- 
tion for  the  purpose  of  exchange  and  commerce;  goods 
were  even  carried  from  one  country  into  the  other.  It 
sounds  quite  strange  when  we  read  to-day  that  England 
sold  wool,  hides  and  grain  to  the  wealthy  cities  of  Flan- 
ders, and  took  wine,  oil,  spices  and  certain  manufactured 
goods  in  exchange  for  them.  The  ships  of  the  great 
Mediterranean  republics  often  found  their  way  to  Eng- 
lish ports.  These  republics  established  overland  routes 
between  India  and  Europe  and  carried  the  products  of 
one  continent  to  the  other.  The  exchange  of  goods  re- 
ceived an  immense  impetus  by  the  remarkable  discov- 
eries of  the  fifteenth  century;  in  1492  that  of  the  West 
Indies,  in  1497  tna^  of  Newfoundland  and  Florida,  in 
the  same  year  that  of  the  ocean  way  around  the  Cape 
of  Good  Hope,  in  1499  that  of  Brazil.  Then  followed 
in  the  early  part  of  the  sixteenth  century  the  conquests 
of  Cuba,  Mexico  and  Peru,  during  which  it  became  quite 
doubtful  who  were  the  real  savages,  the  conquerors  or 
the  vanquished,  for  the  conduct  of  the  civilized  Christian 
Spaniards  was  certainly  more  savage  and  barbaric  than 
that  of  the  heathenish  aborigines.  Very  often  it  seems 
to  me  that  even  to  this  day  the  savage  nature  of  man  is 
still  slumbering  in  civilized  man,  and  is  awakened  and 


THE  STATE  159 

drawn  from  its  recess  by  the  lust  for  gold.  Modern  civi- 
lization falls  into  hysterics  at  the  sight  of  individual 
misfortune  or  great  accidental  calamity,  and  at  the  same 
time  goes  into  man-killing  wars  of  conquest,  starts  col- 
onies in  murderous  climates,  treats  their  original  inhab- 
itants with  cruel  barbarism,  sends  soldiers  there  to  be 
either  slain  or  killed  by  malaria;  and  does  it  merely  for 
the  purpose  of  extending  trade  and  making  large  prof- 
its. All  of  which  would  be,  of  course,  impossible,  if 
there  were  not  a  propertyless  class,  ready  at  all  times 
to  do  the  work  of  the  property  holding  class,  no  matter 
of  what  nature  it  is,  and  if  the  mode  of  production  was 
not  such  that  it  produces  and  constantly  reproduces  such 
a  poor  class. 

The  building  of  better  ships  and  the  discovery  of  the 
advantages  which  lay  in  the  division  of  labor  was  fol- 
lowed by  a  slow  and  gradual,  but  steady,  growth  of  in- 
dustry and  commerce.  Great  wealth  was  accumulated, 
and  history  has  preserved  the  names  of  some  great  com- 
mercial houses,  such  as  the  Welsers  and  the  Fuggers 
in  Augsburg,  who  possessed  fabulous  riches.  But  then 
came  the  era  of  great  inventions,  the  utilization  of  forces 
of  nature,  hitherto  unknown,  the  wonderful  progress  of 
chemistry,  the  facilitation  of  commerce  by  new  means 
of  transportation,  and  industry  and  commerce  took  on 
proportions  which  threw  everything  that  existed  before 
into  insignificance. 

This  stupendous  growth  and  expansion  had  a  re- 
markable effect  on  the  classes.  It  produced  that  purely 
economic  class  which  to-day  rules  over  all  civilized 
countries,  and  abolished  or  rendered  insignificant  the 
political  or  privileged  classes.  It  was  a  simple  economic 
process.  It  was  the  necessary  and  unavoidable  effect 


160  LOOKING  FORWARD 

of  the  separation  of  the  producer  from  the  means  of 
production.  The  invention  of  the  steam  engine  marked 
the  final  outgoing  of  the  artisan's  shop  and  the  firm 
establishment  of  the  factory  system,  a  process  which  had 
already  begun  with  the  introduction  of  systematic  divi- 
sion of  labor.  The  means,  or  say  tools,  of  production 
grew  more  expensive  from  day  to  day;  it  was  not  any 
longer  within  the  possibilities  of  everybody  to  procure 
them,  and  the  great  mass  of  the  producers  became  wage- 
workers.  In  proportion  as  capital  grew,  it  needed  more 
freedom  for  its  undertakings,  and  it  brushed  aside  with 
a  powerful  hand  all  legal  restraints  and  restrictions. 
Class  privileges  had  become  a  hindrance  to  the  opera- 
tions of  capital.  It  needed  as  workers  men  and  women 
free  in  the  sale  of  their  labor  force.  It  therefore  in- 
vented, and  raised  to  a  great  moral  principle,  the  doc- 
trine of  free  trade,  meaning  perfect  freedom  of  trade, 
the  Manchester  theory  of  "laissez  faire,  laissez  aller." 
It  said  to  the  government:  "Hands  off  from  my  opera- 
tions," and  forced  the  government  to  protect  it  in  its 
freedom  of  operation,  violating  without  any  scruples  its 
own  principles  by  the  institution  of  protective  and  even 
prohibitive  tariff-duties  where  it  suited  its  purposes. 

When  the  philosophy  of  the  second  half  of  the 
eighteenth  century  promulgated  "les  droits  de  l'homme," 
the  inalienable  rights  of  man,  as  they  were  called  in  the 
American  declaration  of  independence,  it  had  not  dis- 
covered a  new  moral  principle,  but  stated  in  the  form  of 
a  moral  rule  what  had  become  the  economic  necessity 
of  the  time.  It  was  not  the  great  moral  principle  of 
the  right  of  a  nation  to  legislate  for  itself  that  started 
the  American  revolution,  but  it  was  the  practical  eco- 


THE;  STATE  161 

nomic  principle  of  no  taxation  without  representation 
which  did  it. 

In  the  French  revolution  as  well  as  in  the  Amer- 
ican, it  was  the  "bourgeoisie,"  the  possessing  class,  that 
was  the  revolutionary  element.  The  revolutions  of  the 
eighteenth  and  nineteenth  centuries  were  all  "bourgeois" 
revolutions,  having  for  their  objects  the  abolition  of  the 
prerogatives  of  the  privileged  classes,  the  "states,"  the 
"etats,"  the  "stande."  There  existed  as  yet  no  eco- 
nomic class  which  ruled  without  legal  privileges.  The 
signers  of  the  declaration  of  independence  honestly  be- 
lieved that  the  extinction  of  political  classes  was  all  that 
was  needed  to  establish  "liberty,  equality  and  frater- 
nity," and  that  a  republican  form  of  government  was 
perfectly  sufficient  to  establish  a  permanent  era  of  gen- 
eral happiness.  The  power  and  influence  of  purely  eco- 
nomic classes  was  unknown  to  them;  it  was  not  thought 
that  a  class  could  rule  the  state  without  being  by  the 
law  especially  empowered  to  do  so.  The  mode  of  phil- 
osophy in  those  times  was  entirely  deductive,  and  the 
greatest  thinkers  believed  in  the  truth  and  power  of  a 
priori  principles.  They  could  see  no  reason  why,  if  all 
men  were  declared  free  and  equal  and  a  constitutional 
and  legal  edifice  was  erected  upon  that  proposition,  all 
men  should  not  really  be  free  and  equal  and  enjoy  the 
fruits  of  freedom  and  equality  as  established  in  constitu- 
tional maxims  and  legal  formulae.  The  power  of  wealth 
was  for  them  so  completely  concealed  behind  the  easily 
observable  power  of  class-privilege,  the  economic  class 
was  so  completely  veiled  by  the  privileged  class,  and 
the  belief  that  the  elimination  of  legal  class-privileges 
was  bound  of  necessity  to  be  followed  by  the  acme  of 
freedom  was  so  strong,  that  they  surrounded  the  con- 


162  BOOKING  FORWARD 

stitution  of  the  newly  created  Union  with  almost  uncon- 
querable guards. 

It  is  almost  needless  to  say  that  the  freedom  which  a 
Thomas  Jefferson  and  a  Patrick  Henry  had  in  their 
minds,  and  which  they  felt  sure  of  creating,  does  not 
to-day  exist.  If  they  had  been  told  that  in  consequence 
of,  and  under  the  protection  of  the  freedom  established 
by  them,  a  class  would  grow  up  which,  without  titles 
and  privileges,  would  rule  the  country  by  sheer  force  of 
wealth  and  economic  conditions,  and  that  the  class,  suf- 
fering under  this  rule,  would  find  in  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States,  built  upon  those  principles  of  free- 
dom, an  obstacle  in  their  struggle  for  bettering  their 
condition ;  if  they  had  been  told  that  their  maxims  of  lib- 
erty, as  laid  down  in  the  constitution,  would,  in  some 
future  time,  receive  an  interpretation  which  through 
theories  of  property  and  contract  rights,  would  handicap 
a  lower  class  in  its  struggle  for  freedom,  they  would  not 
have  comprehended  it,  and  if  they  had,  would  not  have 
found  means  to  prevent  it.  Yet,  such  is  the  case  to-day, 
and  the  class  which  rules  by  sheer  force  of  wealth,  with- 
out titles  and  privileges,  exists,  not  only  in  this  country, 
but  in  all  civilized  countries.  It  rules  whether  the  form 
of  government  is  republican  or  monarchical,  whether 
titles  exist  or  not,  whether  political  classes  still  retain  a 
shadow  of  their  former  prerogatives  or  not.  Where  this 
class  exists,  kingly  power  has  been  so  reduced  that  the 
principal  difference  between  a  modern  monarchy  and  a 
modern  republic  is  only  this,  that  in  the  one  the  office 
of  the  chief  of  the  nation  is  hereditary,  in  the  other 
elective.  As  a  matter  of  principle  I  certainly  prefer  the 
republican  form  of  government  to  the  monarchical.  My 
sentiment,  indeed,  is  thoroughly  republican,  but  I  do  not 


THE  STATE;  163 

believe,  as  many  seem  to  believe,  that  republican  forms 
alone  are  sufficient  to  guarantee  any  degree  of  liberty. 
Our  republican  forms  did  not  prevent  us  from  main- 
taining through  a  whole  century  of  our  independence 
the  institution  of  slavery,  nor  do  they  prevent  us  to-day 
from  establishing  imperial  government  over  foreign  peo- 
ples. In  the  republic  of  France  titles  are  still  existing 
and  the  middle  and  South  American  republics  are  mere 
parodies  on  republicanism.  It  was  not  different  in 
ancient  times.  The  democratical  institutions  of  Greece 
and  its  republican  forms  of  government,  as  well  as  those 
of  primitive  Rome,  formed  no  obstacle  to  the  mainte- 
nance of  slavery.  The  laws  of  Draco  in  the  ancient 
republic  of  Attica  were  said  to  have  been  written  with 
blood,  the  republic  of  Venice  had  a  government  as  des- 
potic as  one  can  be  imagined  and  that  of  Genoa  was 
thoroughly  aristocratic.  Upon  the  other  hand,  as  to  the 
peoples'  rights  and  liberty,  there  is  very  little  material 
difference  between  the  constitutional  monarchies  of 
Europe  and  the  modern  republics.  The  German  emperor 
cannot  veto  any  law  passed  by  the  Reichstag  and  the 
Bundesrath,  but  the  president  of  the  United  States  may 
veto  any  law  passed  by  Congress.  The  king  of  Eng- 
land, after  having  appointed  his  council  and  govern- 
ment, can  neither  appoint  nor  remove  a  civil  officer, 
whereas  the  president  of  the  United  States  has  the  im- 
mense prerogative  of  appointing  and  removing  an  army 
of  civil  officers.  If  one  considers  the  enormous  influence 
hidden  in  this  prerogative,  it  is  not  too  much  to  say 
that  the  president  of  the  United  States  wields  a  greater 
power  than  most  of  the  European  monarchs.  On  paper, 
kings,  perhaps,  possess  greater  rights  in  reference  to 
war  and  peace,  whereas  the  constitution  of  the  United 


164  LOOKING  FORWARD 

States  lays  the  power  of  declaring  war  exclusively  Into 
the  hands  of  Congress.  But  declarations  of  war  have 
somewhat  gone  out  of  fashion.  Wars  are,  in  our  days, 
commenced  without  declaration,  which  follows  after- 
wards as  a  mere  matter  of  form  and  our  president, 
being  the  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and  navy, 
as  kings  and  emperors  are,  has  the  practical  power  of 
making  war  without  waiting  for  a  declaration  of  war 
from  Congress.  Did  not  the  American  government  par- 
ticipate in  the  Boxer  war  in  China  only  a  few  years  ago 
without  ever  asking  the  permission  of  Congress?  Were 
not,  under  President  Harrison,  American  marines 
landed  in  Honolulu  and  the  country  taken  possession  of 
without  even  the  knowledge  of  Congress?  The  Ger- 
man, the  English  and  the  Italian  press  criticize  the  gov- 
ernment as  freely  as  the  American  press,  only  the  king's 
person  is  protected  against  insult  by  severe  laws.  True, 
the  president  is,  in  this  respect,  at  a  disadvantage ;  the 
American  citizen  has  the  privilege  of  saying,  nasty 
things  of  the  president.  This  privilege,  however,  seems 
to  me  to  be  of  very  doubtful  value,  and  one  of  which 
well  bred  people  are  not  apt  to  make  use  anyway. 

Gibbon  begins  the  third  chapter  of  his  "Decline  and 
Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire"  as  follows :  "The  obvious 
definition  of  a  monarchy  seems  to  be  that  of  a  state  in 
which  a  single  person  by  whatever  name  he  may  be  des- 
ignated, is  entrusted  with  the  execution  of  the  laws, 
the  management  of  the  revenue  and  the  command  of 
the  army."  It  seems  to  me  that  this  defi  lition  fits  the 
United  States  not  less  than  any  modern  constitutional 
monarchy. 

Further  on  in  the  same  chapter  the  &reat  historian 
says:  "The  consul  or  the  tribune  might  have  reigned 


THE  STATE  165 

in  peace.  The  title  of  the  king  had  armed  the  Romans 
against  his  life.  Augustus  was  sensible  that  mankind  is 
governed  by  names." 

The  distinguishing  feature  of  modern  self-govern- 
ment is  not  the  republican  but  the  parliamentary  form, 
including  the  right  of  budget,  the  right  of  holding  the 
purse-string,  the  right  of  taxation  and  the  right  of  ap- 
propriation. This  right  is  held  to-day  by  the  people  in 
constitutional  monarchies  as  well  as  in  republics.  It  is 
the  people's  right  par  excellence,  without  which  all  other 
rights  would  be  of  no  value  whatever.  It  is  the  right, 
the  absence  of  which  marks  in  our  days  absolutism  or 
despotism  as  a  form  of  government.  Whatever  prerog- 
atives the  crown  may  have,  as  long  as  the  use  of  them 
depends  on  the  willingness  or  unwillingness  of  the  peo- 
ple to  bear  the  expense  and  to  tax  themselves  with  it, 
the  real  power,  theoretically,  is  in  the  hands  of  the  peo- 
ple. The  right  to  grant  or  refuse  taxes  and  appropria- 
tions is  of  an  economic  character  and  is,  therefore, 
entirely  in  consonance  with  the  character  of  the  eco- 
nomic class  which  to-day  rules  the  world  and  presides 
over  the  destinies  of  nations.  Even  governments  like 
the  Russian  must  bow  before  it  and  concede  to  it  at 
least  so  much  as  giving  an  account  of  its  resources  and 
expenditures,  for  otherwise  it  could  not  borrow  a  cent. 
Inability  to  borrow,  however,  would  be  a  very  serious 
matter  in  an  age  in  which  state-debts  have  grown  to  be 
permanent  institutions.  Whatever  differences  there  may 
be  between  constitutional  monarchies  and  republics  in 
minor  matters,  and  in  matters  of  form,  in  this  material 
point  they  are  alike.  The  absence  of  political  freedom 
in  a  people  is  principally  marked  by  the  power  of  the 
government  to  tax  the  people  at  will  and  to  use  its 


166  IvOOKING  FORWARD 

resources  without  accounting  for  them  to  the  people. 
It  was  taxation  without  representation  which  caused  the 
American  colonies  to  free  themselves  from  English  rule, 
but  the  Englishman,  who  is  as  liberty-loving  as  the 
American,  is  loyal  to  the  crown.  The  German  govern- 
ment cannot  borrow  a  cent,  nobody  will  loan  it  a  cent, 
it  can  spend  nothing  without  the  consent  of  the  Reichs- 
tag, and  compared  with  this  power  of  the  people's  rep- 
resentatives, all  other  matters  in  which  republics  may 
differ  from  monarchies  appear  to  be  mere  trifles.  Even 
the  hereditary  right  of  the  nobility  of  some  European 
monarchies,  as  for  instance  Great  Britain  and  Prussia, 
to  occupy  the  seats  in  the  upper  houses  of  their  legisla- 
tive bodies,  is  unable  to  check  the  will  of  those  holding 
the  keys  to  the  coffers  of  the  nation. 

But  the  compulsory  military  service !  Is  not  that  an 
institution,  violating  every  principle  of  liberty?  Perhaps 
it  is,  but  it  is  not  a  distinguishing  feature  between  mon- 
archism  and  republicanism.  Monarchical  England  has 
no  compulsory  military  service,  and  republican  France 
has.  And  who  knows,  but  we  would  have  it  in  the 
United  States  also,  if,  instead  of  forming  one  great 
nation,  covering  almost  the  whole  continent,  we  formed 
a  half-dozen  or  dozen  nations,  each  inhabiting  a  part  of 
our  territory,  and  all  being  jealous  of  each  other.  It  is 
generally  acknowledged  that  municipal  government  in 
the  European  constitutional  monarchies  is  better  and 
more  honest  than  in  our  republic,  that  there  is  less  cor- 
ruption and  that  politics  is  cleaner;  and  as  there  is  no 
reason  to  believe  that  the  European  is  more  honest  than 
the  American,  the  reason  must  be  somewhere  in  our 
governmental  system. 

The   modern    bourgeoisie,    a    purely    economic  class 


THE  STATE  167 

without  constitutional  prerogatives  and  legal  privileges, 
possessing  the  wealth  of  the  nations,  manipulating  it  in 
industry,  commerce  and  transportation,  exploiting  phys- 
ical and  intellectual  human  labor  force  and  the  forces  of 
nature  as  well  as  the  treasures  stored  up  in  the  bosom 
of  our  planet,  makes  history  and  shapes  the  destinies 
of  nations,  and,  queer  enough,  does  it  all  in  the  name 
of  freedom.  In  those  times  when  land  was  the  chief 
source  of  wealth  and  power,  dynasties  and  powerful 
families  indulged  in  warfare  for  the  purpose  of  absorb- 
ing the  lands  of  other  nations.  To-day  dynastic  wars 
have  almost  become  an  impossibility,  because  more  is  to 
be  gained  by  trading  with  a  nation  than  by  robbing  it  of 
its  land.  The  question  of  the  open  door  has  become  of 
greater  importance  than  the  question  of  whose  domains 
a  country  shall  form  a  part. 

The  bourgeois  class,  composed  of  merchants,  manu- 
facturers, bankers,  capitalists,  etc.,  the  tiers  etat,  the 
third  estate,  as  it  was  called  in  ante-revolution  times  of 
France,  has  in  numerous  revolutions  in  different  coun- 
tries overthrown  feudalistic  institutions  and  has  become 
the  ruling  class  of  our  time.  It  is  sufficient  for  the  pur- 
poses of  this  book  to  state  that  it  rules  in  republics  and 
monarchies  alike,  without  entering  into  a  discussion  of 
the  psychological  and  political  process  of  the  growth  of 
its  power  and  influence,  interesting  as  the  subject  might 
be.  A  few  facts,  however,  I  will  mention,  too  obvious 
to  need  any  explanation.  First,  that  parliamentarism, 
coupled  even  with  universal  suffrage  (women  are  not 
yet  counted),  has  not  been  able  to  prevent  this  class 
from  exercising  an  almost  exclusive  influence  on  elec- 
tions, appointments,  legislation,  administration  of  justice 
and  the  policy  of  the  government,  the  large  mass  of  the 


168  LOOKING  FORWARD 

people,  so  far,  having  consciously  or  unconsciously  sub- 
mitted to  the  will  of  that  class.  Second,  that  a  ruling 
class  cannot  exist  without  a  ruled  class,  and  that, 
although  there  are  isolated  cases  of  poor  workingmen 
acquiring,  under  specially  fortunate  circumstances, 
great  wealth,  and  thereby  rising  out  of  their  class,  the 
present  mode  of  production  and  distribution  could  not 
exist  without  a  large  class  of  propertyless  men  and 
women,  dependent  for  work  and  a  living  upon  the  class 
possessing  the  instruments  of  labor.  Third,  that  our 
law  takes  no  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  economic 
classes,  because  such  classes  have  no  legal  prerogatives; 
that  in  the  eyes  of  the  law  all  citizens  are  free  and 
equal ;  that  legal  theories  prevail  over  actual  conditions ; 
that  the  theories  of  law  are  out  of  harmony  with  actual 
relations;  and  that,  therefore,  freedom  and  equality  are 
only  legal  fictions. 

The  reason  for  this  is  that  economic  conditions 
change  more  rapidly  than  legal  and  political  institutions, 
the  latter  following  only  very  slowly  the.  continuous  evo~ 
lution  of  economics,  and  adjusting  themselves  only  by 
degrees  and  in  long  intervals  to  economic  changes,  often, 
as  history  teaches,  not  without  violent  convulsions  in 
human  society.  There  can  be  no  question  that  unre- 
strained competition  produced  many  evils,  yet  one  would 
in  vain  seek  for  any  deep  impressions  of  these  evils 
upon  our  laws  or  even  upon  the  tendency  of  new  leg- 
islation, except  in  efforts  to  suppress  child  labor. 

Legislation  of  the  last  century  is  all  based  upon  the 
theory  that  competition  is  an  unmixed  blessing.  Although 
it  has  been  quite  evident  for  some  time  that  the  tendency 
of  economic  evolution  is  toward  its  elimination,  legisla- 
tion fails  to  see  in  the  uninterrupted  and  irresistible 


THE  STATE  169 

growth  of  concentration  and  combination  in  commerce 
and  industry  a  general  social  movement.  It  insists  upon 
proceeding  on  the  old  theory  of  the  necessity  and  use- 
fulness of  competition,  and  instead  of  adjusting  itself 
to  the  new  conditions,  it  attempts  to  oppose  them  and  to 
preserve  institutions  beyond  which  the  development  of 
economic  conditions  has  advanced. 

As  a  consequence  thereof  we  are  witnesses  to  the 
peculiar  phenomenon  that  under  legal  maxims  of  free- 
dom and  equality,  conditions  are  defended  and  upheld 
which  practically  destroy  freedom  and  equality,  because 
these  maxims  owe  their  existence  to  economic  condi- 
tions no  longer  prevalent.  When  the  constitution  of 
this  country  was  formed,  a  century  and  a  quarter  ago, 
America  was  an  agricultural  country.  There  were  no 
steam  engines,  no  gas  engines,  no  electric  motors;  there 
were  no  locomotives,  no  railroads,  no  steamships,  no 
street  cars.  Mills  and  factories,  such  as  now  fill  our 
country,  existed  nowhere.  We  exported  some  natural 
products  and  imported  most  articles  of  industry.  What 
a  tremendous  change  within  not  much  more  than  a  cen- 
tury !  If  the  framers  of  our  constitution  would  rise 
from  their  graves,  they  would  not  know  the  face  of  the 
country  in  which  they  were  born,  lived  and  died.  Con- 
sidering the  different  economic  positions  of  employer 
and  employed,  it  appears  almost  impossible  to  frame  any 
law  affecting  both  equally.  Yet,  when  any  legislative 
attempt  is  made  to  remedy  a  condition  recognized  as 
injurious  to  the  freedom  of  action  of  the  employee,  the 
remedy,  in  the  nature  of  things,  injuriously  affecting 
the  employer's  freedom  of  action,  is  rejected  by  the 
courts  as  class  legislation,  or  as  violating  the  freedom 
of  contract.  That  is  to  say,  the  law  is  not  allowed  to 


170  LOOKING  FORWARD 

interfere  with  the  freedom  of  action  in  order  to  leave 
undisturbed  the  interference  of  conditions  with  the  free- 
dom of  action.  An  anomaly  which  necessarily  must  re- 
sult from  the  disharmony  between  legal  theories  and 
practical  conditions. 

Of  course,  efforts  are  constantly  made  toward  the 
adjustment  of  both,  and  numerous  are  the  propositions 
to  counteract  the  influence  of  wealth  and  the  power  of 
the  ruling  economic  class.  Some  of  them  have  been 
practically  tried,  as  for  instance  popular  legislation  by 
initiative  and  referendum  and  depreciation  of  money,  the 
first  being  a  purely  political,  the  other  a  purely  economic 
measure.  The  intitiative  and  the  referendum  prevail, 
although  in  a  somewhat  limited  measure,  in  the  Swiss 
republic.  The  institution  may  have  its  merits,  but  it 
seems  to  me  that  in  the  present  economic  order  it  can- 
not be  made  effective.  In  Switzerland,  at  least,  where 
the  general  economic  order  and  the  relation  between 
the  classes  are  the  same  as  in  every  other  country  with 
extensive  industries,  they  have  not  resulted  in  any  sub- 
stantial changes.  Nor  could  they;  for  cause  and  effect 
cannot  be  reversed.  The  social  question  is  not  how  to 
do  things,  but  what  to  do.  The  mode  of  legislation  is 
a  means,  not  an  end.  Purely  political  measures  may  be 
very  effective  against  the  power  of  political  classes,  but 
not  of  purely  economic  classes,  and  can  therefore  be  of 
much  importance  only  where  political  rights  are  not 
equal  to  all.  There  have  of  late  been  signs  that  the 
people  of  Switzerland  are  growing  weary  of  the  refer- 
endum. 

Depreciation  of  money,  or  more  properly  speaking, 
of  coins,  as  well  as  the  substitution  of  money-tokens  for 
real  money  has,  as  history  shows,  been  frequently  re- 


THE  STATE  171 

sorted  to,  and  has  sometimes  been  of  benefit  in  tempo- 
rarily bridging  over  exceptional  conditions,  especially  in 
times  of  war,  as,  for  instance,  during  the  American  war 
for  independence  and  the  French  revolution  of  1798. 
But  history  does  not  record  the  fact  that  it  ever  had 
any  lasting  beneficial  effect  on  the  economic  organiza- 
tion of  society,  or  that  it  ever  permanently  bettered  the 
condition  of  the  class  that  needed  betterment  most. 
Although  a  purely  economic  measure,  it  does  not  seem 
to  me  to  follow  the  trend  of  evolution  and  to  be  one 
that  would  by  logical  economic  necessity  come  in  course 
of  time  anyway. 

While  these  two  measures  have  been  practically 
tried1,  there  are  other  propositions  which  have  never  had 
a  practical  test.  There  is  the  theory  of  the  single  tax, 
whose  followers  believe  that  an  exclusive  land-tax  would 
bring  about!  a  condition  akin  to  public  ownership  of  land 
and  thereby  revolutionize  the  entire  economic  system. 
Without  intending  to  discuss  extensively  the  merits  or 
demerits  of  the  theories  of  Henry  George,  I  cannot  sup- 
press a  few  thoughts  in  reference  to  it.  It  would  be 
remarkable,  indeed,  if  a  simple  fiscal  measure,  such  as 
taxing  only  land  and  nothing  else,  no  matter  how  high 
or  low  the  tax-rate  may  be,  should  have  the  effect  of 
completely  revolutionizing  the  complete  system  of  indus- 
try, commerce  and  finance  of  the  present  time.  I  do  not 
believe  that  even  Mr.  George's  brilliancy  of  style  will 
ever  convince  the  masses  of  the  people  that  the  power 
and  influence  of  capital  can  be  broken  by  freeing  it  from 
taxation.  Presuming  even,  though  I  do  not  believe  it, 
that  the  single  tax  would  practically  result  in  the  aboli- 
tion of  private  ownership  in  land,  leaving,  as  Mr. 
George  puts  it,  only  the  shell  to  the  owner  and  taking 


172  LOOKING  FORWARD 

from  him  the  kernel.  I  am  unable  to  see  that  such  far- 
reaching  changes  in  our  economic  conditions  would 
thereby  be  produced,  as  Mr.  George  thinks  there  would. 
It  requires  the  imaginative  mind  of  Henry  George  to 
believe  that  exploitation  can  be  materially  affected  in 
the  industrial  and  commercial  world  by  any  means 
which  leaves  the  system  of  buying  labor  for  its  market 
price  and  producing  and  exchanging  for  profit  intact. 

I  do  not  recollect  whether  the  word  profit  can  be 
found  at  all  in  Mr.  George's  book,  but  I  do  know  that 
in  his  theory  profit  is  no  special  category  of  income. 
He  still  adheres  to  the  ancient  and  musty  theory  of 
wages  of  superintendence,  and  treats  profit  as  a  species 
of  wages,  so  that  when  he  speaks  of  wages,  he  does  not 
mean  merely  the  price  of  hired  labor,  but  also  the  profit 
of  the  merchant  and  manufacturer,  the  $100,000  or 
$150,000  salary  of  the  president  of  a  life  insurance  com- 
pany, the  fee  of  a  corporation  lawyer;  in  fact,  every- 
thing except  interest  and  rent.  An  economic  theory 
which  fails  to  recognize  profit  as  one  of  the  pillars  on 
which  the  prevailing  system  rests,  and  fails  to  distin- 
guish between  the  wages  of  the  day  laborer,  the  salary 
of  a  corporation  president  and  the  surplus  of  a  mer- 
chant or  manufacturer  hardly  deserves  serious  consider- 
ation. 

If  at  any  time,  anywhere,  the  conditions  should  be 
ripe  for  the  abolition  of  private  ownership  in  land,  it  will 
in  all  probability  be  done  in  a  much  more  direct  way 
than  that  of  the  single  tax. 

Whether  the  doctrines  of  the  so-called  philosophic 
anarchists,  who  advocate  the  abolition  of  all  authority, 
but  have  not  yet  been  able  to  devise  means  for  the  con- 
duct of  their  own  meetings  without  putting  some  kind 


THE;  STATE  173 

of  authority  into  the  hands  of  some  person,  are  more 
worthy  of  attention,  I  will  leave  to  those  who  are  fami- 
liar with  them. 

Municipal  ownership,  or,  as  it  is  called  in  Great 
Britain,  municipal  socialism,  is  sometimes  recommended 
as  a  reform  movement  for  the  betterment  of  general 
economic  conditions.  Its  effects  in  this  respect  are, 
however,  overestimated.  It  has  been  in  practice  in  Ger- 
many for  many  years  without  any  visible  effect  on  gen- 
eral economic  conditions.  Municipal  socialism  is  a  mis- 
nomer, for  it  is  at  the  present  time  not  socialistic,  neither 
in  inception  nor  purpose,  but  merely  a  business  method. 
The  character  of  municipal  or  state  ownership  depends 
altogether  on  the  character  of  the  state  and  its  ruling 
class,  and  this  is  in  present  times  anything  but  social- 
istic. As  a  business  method  it  may  have  many  advan- 
tages, as  a  general  reform  movement  it  is  of  little  value. 

The  most  radical,  and,  at  the  same  time,  the  most 
rational  movement,  is  unquestionably  modern  socialism, 
based  upon  the  theories  of  Karl  Marx,  who,  with  his 
acute,  critical  mind,  has  produced  a  description  of  mod- 
ern economic  conditions  and  relations,  the  analytical 
force  of  which  has  not  been  surpassed  by  anything  that 
has  been  written  on  the  subject  before  or  since.  Marx 
distinguishes  between  labor  force  and  labor,  the  latter 
being  the  result  of  the  application  of  the  former.  What 
the  employer  buys  is  labor  force  and  what  he  pays  for 
it  is,  if  the  laborer  is  not  to  suffer  actual  want,  what, 
considering  the  standard  of  living  and  the  necessity  of 
maintaining  a  family  for  the  preservation  of  the  class, 
is  necessary  for  the  reproduction  of  the  labor  force 
expended.  As  this  requires  an  amount  of  labor  far 
below  the  amount  actually  performed,  the  laborer  pro- 


174  LOOKING  FORWARD 

duces  surplus  values  which  become  the  property  of  the 
employer  and  are  accumulated  for  the  formation  of 
wealth  and  capital.  In  other  words,  wealth  is  composed 
of  the  difference  between  the  price  of  labor  force  and 
the  result  of  labor  performed.  A  man's  labor  force  is  a 
physical  quantity  which  does  not  change  much;  but 
labor  itself,  the  form  in  which  labor  force  is  applied,  is 
subject  to  variation  in  kind  and  effectiveness  and  has 
grown  in  productiveness  with  the  perfection  of  the  in- 
struments of  labor. 

These,  however,  the  laborer  does  not  possess.  With- 
out them  he  cannot  make  use  of  his  labor  force.  He  is, 
therefore,  compelled  to  sell  his  labor  force  to  the  owner 
of  the  instruments  of  labor  at  a  price  which  is  influenced 
comparatively  little  by  the  normal  result  of  its  applica- 
tion. 

Modern  socialism,  therefore,  advocates  the  national- 
ization or  socialization  of  production  by  abolishing  pri- 
vate ownership  of  the  instruments  of  production.  This 
would  necessarily  result  in  the  abolition  of  the  wage  sys- 
tem and  lead  to  a  distribution  of  the  products  among 
the  producers,  after  having  made  provision  for  the  needs 
of  government,  the  aged,  the  sick  and  other  dependents 
and  those  who  in  science  or  art  perform  beneficial, 
though  not  materially  or  physically  productive,  labor. 

It  is  part  of  the  socialistic  philosophy  that,  by  an 
unavoidable  process  of  evolution,  socialism  will  become 
the  basis  of  the  economic  structure  of  society,  as  certain 
as  individualism  is  its  basis  now.  The  transformation 
will,  according  to  that  philosophy,  be  gradual,  although 
it  is  possible  that  great  upheavals  and  revolutions  will 
be  a  part  of  the  evolutionary  process.  Believing  that 
the  working  class  must  create  its  own  freedom  and  fur- 


THE  STATE  175 

ther  believing  the  attainment  of  political  power  for  th^ 
accomplishment  of  their  purposes  to  be  a  condition  sine 
qua  non,  socialists  everywhere  effect  political  organiza- 
tions, using  the  ballot  as  a  means  of  accomplishing  their 
object.  The  socialistic  movement  has  become  world- 
wide, and  there  is  hardly  any  civilized  country  in  which 
it  is  without  organization.  It  has  a  very  extensive  lit- 
erature and  a  large  number  of  newspapers  and  periodi- 
cals. Very  fanciful  pictures  of  socialistic  conditions 
have  been  drawn  by  Edward  Bellamy  in  his  "Looking 
Backward,"  and  by  William  Morris  in  his  "News  From 
Nowhere."  While  scientists,  politicians  and  statesmen 
advocating  socialism  are  careful  to  refrain  from  pic- 
torial descriptions  of  future  conditions,  and  confine 
themselves  to  statements  and  explications  of  theories,  it 
is,  of  course,  the  privilege  of  the  novelist  and  the  poet 
to  be  descriptive  and  fanciful. 

A  not  inconsiderable  faction  of  the  Socialists  under 
the  leadership  of  Jaures  in  France  and  Bernstein  in  Ger- 
many, impressed  by  the  uncertainty  of  the  future,  attach 
more  importance  to  the  movement  itself  than  to  the  the- 
ories and  probabilities  of  its  final  outcome,  considering 
the  latter  of  secondary  value  only. 

Perhaps  it  may  be  of  interest  to  the  reader  to  learn 
the  opinions  of  two  such  eminent  American  scholars  as 
the  Reverend  Dr.  Lyman  Abbott,  one  of  the  foremost 
pulpit  orators  of  America,  and  Mr.  Lewis  H.  Morgan, 
the  great  scientist  whom  I  have  so  frequently  mentioned 
in  this  book.  Mr.  Abbott  in  a  lecture  on  "Industrial 
Evolution,"  which  I  attended  a  number  of  years  ago, 
expressed  himself  about  as  follows :  "The  first  condi- 
tion of  labor  is  slavery.  The  capitalist,  in  this  stage, 
owns  the  laborer,  and,  therefore,  owns  all  the  products 


176  LOOKING  FORWARD 

of  the  labor.  The  second  condition  is  feudalism,  in 
which  system  the  capitalist  owns  the  land  and  the  laborer 
is  an  attachment  to  the  land.  The  capitalist,  in  other 
words,  has  a  lien  on  the  laborer.  The  third  stage  in  the 
evolution  is  the  present  wage  system.  The  capitalist 
now  owns  the  tools,  and  the  laborer,  having  no  tools  of 
his  own,  must  needs  work  at  the  command  of  the  cap- 
italist owner  of  the  tools.  Personally,  however,  the 
laborer  is  free.  The  wages  system,  or  capitalist  system, 
is  a  gain  over  feudalism,  as  feudalism  is  a  gain  over 
slavery.  To-day  is  better  than  yesterday,  but  may  not 
to-morrow  be  better  than  to-day?  The  remedy  will  lie 
in  the  establishment  of  a  "democracy"  of  industry,  which 
will  be  the  fourth  stage  of  evolution,  toward  which  we 
are  rapidly  tending.  The  men  who  toil  shall  own  the 
tools  in  this  new  era.  The  evolution  of  government 
corresponds  with  the  evolution  of  industry.  Through 
the  paternal  stage,  we  are  now  in  the  individualistic,  and 
are  tending  toward  the  fraternal." 

Mr.  Morgan  closes  one  of  the,  chapters  in  his 
"Ancient  Society"  with  the  following  words :  "Since  the 
advent  of  civilization  the  outgrowth  of  property  has 
been  so  immense,  its  forms  so  diversified,  its  uses  so 
expanding  and  its  management  so  intelligent  in  the  in- 
terests of  its  owners,  that  it  has  become  on  the  part  of 
the  people,  an  unmanageable  power.  The  human  mind 
stands  bewildered  in  the  presence  of  its  own  creation. 
The  time  will  come,  nevertheless,  when  human  intelli- 
gence will  rise  to  the  mastery  over  property,  and  define 
the  relations  of  the  state  to  the  property  it  protects,  as 
well  as  the  obligations  and  the  limtis  of  the  rights  of  its 
owners.  The  interests  of  society  are  paramount  to  in- 
dividual interests,  and  the  two  must  be  brought  into  just 


THE  STATE;  177 

and  harmonious  relation.  A  mere  property  career  is  not 
the  final  destiny  of  mankind,  if  progress  is  to  be  the 
law  of  the  future  as  it  has  been  of  the  past.  The  time 
which  has  passed  away  since  civilization  began  is  but  a 
fragment  of  the  past  duration  of  man's  existence,  and 
but  a  fragment  of  the  ages  yet  to  come.  The  dissolu- 
tion of  society  bids  fair  to  become  the  termination  of  a 
career  of  which  property  is  the  end  and  aim,  because 
such  a  career  contains  the  elements  of  self-destruction. 
Democracy  of  government,  brotherhood  in  society, 
equality  in  rights  and  privileges,  and  universal  educa- 
tion, foreshadow  the  next  higher  plane  of  society  to 
which  experience,  intelligence  and  knowledge  are  stead- 
ily tending.  It  will  be  a  revival,  in  a  higher  form,  of 
the  liberty,  equality  and  fraternity  of  the  ancient  gen- 
tes." 

What  I  want  to  make  clear  is  the  point  that  political 
and  social  institutions  are  the  results  of  economic  insti- 
tutions, or  more  particularly,  the  results  of  the  prevalent 
general  modes  of  production  and  the  economic  struct- 
ures created  by  them  at  different  times,  and  that,  there- 
fore, the  principal  point  of  attack  for  reform  movements 
must  be  the  economic  institutions.  The  means  of  attack 
may  be  of  a  political  character,  but  the  aim  must  be  of 
an  economic  nature.  And  in  order  not  to  be  misunder- 
stood, I  will  add  that  under  economic  institutions  I  do 
not  understand  individual  enterprises,  or  any  number  of 
them,  but  that  which  is  part  of,  or  equivalent  to,  a  sys- 
tem, as,  for  instance,  the  institution  of  working  for 
wages,  or  the  institution  of  selling  for  profit,  etc. 

Although  the  evolutionary  force  in  society  is  contin- 
ually active,  and  never  for  a  moment  ceases  to  be,  yet 
man  is  its  instrument,  and  social  movement  its  form  of 


178  BOOKING  FORWARD 

action.  We  cannot  quietly  wait  until  changes  come  by 
themselves.  They  have  to  be  made  by  man.  The  social 
edifice  has  been  erected  by  man.  Judging  from  the  his- 
tory of  the  past,  it  seems  to  be  one  of  the  most  difficult 
tasks  of  man  to  understand  and  clearly  see  the  trend  of 
evolution  in  his  own  time.  Whether  men  are  blinded  by 
ignorance  or  selfishness,  I  care  not  to  investigate,  but  it 
almost  seems  to  me  to  be  the  tragic  fate  of  human  soci- 
ety that  it  must  take  up  or,  at  leasty  consider  every  erro- 
neous, nay  even  impossible,  proposition,  and  give  a 
practical  test  to  many  of  them,  before  adopting  a  meas- 
ure of  real  curative  force.  It  seems  to  me  also,  judg- 
ing from  history,  that  society  is  not  able  to  leap  from 
one  extreme  into  the  other,  and  that  there  must  always 
be  middle  or  transition  periods.  So  it  is  quite  probable 
that  the  constantly  proceeding  concentration  of  capital, 
industry  and  commerce,  the  formation  of  trusts,  syndi- 
cates and  other  economic  associations  for  the  purpose 
of  avoiding  competition,  the  clearly  visible  tendency  in 
the  development  of  our  economics  to  eliminate  competi- 
tion, are  signs  of  a  period  of  transition  from  the  system 
of  competition  to  some  other  system,  the  exact  outlines 
of  which,  have  not  yet  appeared.  Be  that  as  it  may,  the 
world  will  not  stand  still,  and  those  who  are  young 
enough  may,  perhaps,  be  witnesses  of  remarkable 
changes  in  the  not  very  distant  future.  Of  whatever 
nature  these  changes  may  be,  of  one  thing  we  may  be 
sure :  The  world  will  never  go  backward ;  it  will  never 
give  up  any  of  the  cultural  achievements  of  the  past, 
but  will  increase  them  rather  and  build  on  them.  It 
will  never  give  up  any  of  the  acquired  facilities  of  pro- 
duction, and  never  lower  the  general  standard  of  life. 
A  new  system  which  will  stand  on  a  higher  plane 


THE  STATE  179 

than  the  present  will  gradually  grow  and  augment  man's 
comfort,  happiness  and  freedom.  It  is  difficult,  if  not 
impossible,  to  imagine  any  form  of  government  which 
could  be  better  adapted  to  our  economic  system  of  profit 
and  wages  than  the  state  as  constituted  at  present.  It 
is,  indeed,  so  well  adapted  to  it,  it  is  so  closely  linked  to 
it,  that  it  is  unable  to  battle  successfully  with  its  evils. 
No  personal  ties,  no  personal  relations  are  recognized 
in  the  affairs  of  government  and  the  economic  life  of  the 
people.  The  only  relation  in  which  man  stands  to  the 
state  is  that  of  either  citizen  or  subject.  Economically 
speaking,  everybody  is  left  to  himself,  and  the  weaker 
to  the  mercy  of  the  stronger.  Freedom  of  will  is,  by 
legislation  and  in  the  administration  of  justice  presup- 
posed, but  as  a  matter  of  fact  does  not  exist.  Violence 
and  deceit  are  the  only  forces  recognized  as  being  able 
to  affect  the  freedom  of  contract ;  human  feeling,  human 
affection,  physical  suffering,  needs,  wants,  habits  and 
passions  are  forces  unknown  to  the  law  of  contract,  be- 
cause they  are  of  an  emotional  and  intellectual  character* 
and  therefore  intangible.  The  government  of  the  mod- 
ern state  takes  the  attitude  of  the  umpire  at  a  prize  fight, 
insisting  on  fair  play  between  the  fighters  and  strict  ob- 
servation of  the  rules  of  fighting.  The  freedom  of  cap- 
ital is  almost  perfect. 

Such  a  form  of  government,  be  it  monarchical  or 
republican,  does  not  appeal  to  the  highest  and  noblest 
sentiments  of  which  man  is  capable.  It  almost  seems 
that  the  modern  republic  has  progressed  more  rapidly 
in  the  elimination  of  all  relations  between  the  person  and 
the  government  than  the  modern  monarchy.  For,  what 
we  like  to  call  paternalism :  rules  and  regulations  fre- 
quently of  a  petty  nature,  which  seem  to  us  vexatious, 


180  LOOKING  FORWARD 

usually  flow  from  a  desire  to  check  the  individual's  reck- 
less disregard  of  the  interests,  feelings  and  sentiments  of 
others. 

There  are  already  strong  indications  everywhere  of 
the  gradual  abandonment  of  the  doctrine  of  laisser  faire. 
The  principle  of  non-interference  of  the  state  in  eco- 
nomic matters  is  quite  frequently  violated  and  can  hard- 
ly be  maintained  very  much  longer.  In  European  coun- 
tries, especially  in  Germany,  laws  in  reference  to  fair 
competition,  hours  of  labor,  the  condition  of  working 
places  and  factories,  state  insurance  of  laborers  against 
old  age,  sickness  and  accident  are  enforced  without  con- 
stitutional scruples.  In  the  United  States  efforts  in  that 
direction  are  repeatedly  made.  So  far,  however,  most 
legislation  of  this  kind  has  been  declared  unconstitu- 
tional. Yet  the  Supreme  Court  of  Montana  recently  de- 
clared constitutional  a  law  making  the  eight-hour  work- 
day compulsory  for  mines,  and  Colorado  amended  its 
constitution  to  make  possible  the  enactment  of  such  a 
law;  but  efforts  toward  its  enactment  have  so  far  failed. 
At  all  events  it  seems  to  me  that  the  tendency  toward 
abandoning  the  doctrine  of  non-interference  and  the  let- 
alone  policy  is  growing  in  strength,  which  means  that 
there  is  a  tendency  toward  forcing  the  state  to  pay  more 
attention  to  personal  relations  and  individual  conditions 
than  heretofore.  If  this  tendency  should  become  pow- 
erful, it  must,  in  course  of  time,  materially  affect  the 
functions  of  the  state  and  its  relation  to  the  citizens. 

From  its  inception  to  this  day,  the  state  has  been, 
and  still  is,  a  class-institution.  It  could  not  and  cannot 
be  anything  else.  It  owes  its  creation  to  the  existence 
of  classes,  it  will  last  as  long  as  classes  exist  and  will 
disappear  whenever  they  cease  to  exist.  Even  Plato  and 


THE  STATE  181 

Aristoteles,  who  lived  and  wrote  only  a  little  more  than 
two  centuries  after  the  advent  of  state-government  in 
Greece,  were  unable  tec  conceive  of  the  possibility  of  civ- 
ilized existence  without  the  state,  and  equally  unable  to 
conceive  of  a  state  without  classes.  All  recollections  of 
the  great  power  of  the  gentile  organization  seem  to  have 
had  vanished.  In  the  opinions  of  these  great  thinkers 
man  could  exist  only  in  and  through  the  state;  to  them 
the  highest  moral  duty  of  man  was  to  serve  the  state. 
Aristoteles  was  even  unable  to  imagine  a  state  without 
slaves,  whose  moral  duty  and  greatest  virtue  was  to  obey. 
The  class  has  been  the  result  of  a  productive  power 
which,  although  originally  small,  furnished  more  than 
what  was  absolutely  needed  for  subsistence.  When  labor 
commenced  to  furnish  a  surplus  over  what  was  neces- 
sary for  the  worker's  subsistence,  society  divided  itself 
into  classes,  one  of  which  did  all  the  work,  while  the 
other  lived  on  its  surplus.  The  necessity  of  class-insti- 
tutions, and  the  state  as  the  only  possible  embodiment  of 
social  order,  were  defended  by  statesmen  and  philoso- 
phers from  the  time  of  Plato  up  to  the  twentieth  cen- 
tury. But  while  the  ancients  had  good  grounds  for  their 
philosophy,  none  exist  in  modern  times.  The  product- 
ive power  of  their  society  was  small ;  that  of  ours  is  im- 
mense. It  is,  perhaps,  quite  true  that,  as  Buckle  argues, 
civilization  would  have  been  impossible  without  the  ex- 
istence of  unproductive  classes,  and  that  when  produc- 
tion is  so  small  that  everybody  has  to  employ  almost  all 
his  time  in  the  production  of  the  necessities  of  life,  an 
intellectual  class  can  only  exist,  if  it  is  permitted  to  live 
on  the  surplus  produced  by  others.  But  it  is  needless 
to  explain  that  that  reasoning  is  not  applicable  to  our  era 


182  LOOKING  FORWARD 

of  unlimited  power  of  production ;  and  then — intellectual 
and  unproductive  are  not  necessarily  the  same. 

The  class,  and  with  it  the  state,  owe  the  possibility 
of  their  creation  to  the  comparative  poverty  of  society 
at  the  time  of  their  creation.  They  are  unseparable  and 
have  become  inconsistent  with  the  condition  of  wealth 
into  which  society  has  grown.  Sooner  or  later  they  will 
both  disappear.  They  will  be  abolished,  not  from  a  sim- 
ple conviction  that  their  existence  is  contrary  to  justice 
and  equality,  or  from  any  other  ethical  reason,  nor  from 
the  simple  desire  to  abolish  them,  but  by  the  force  of 
economic  conditions. 

Naturally  the  question  will  be  asked:  What  will 
take  their  place?  Morgan,  that  most  eminent  and  close 
observer  of  human  and  social  progress,  and  wise  inter- 
preter of  ancient  institutions,  thinks  that  there  will  be  a 
revival  in  higher  form  of  the  ancient  gentes.  Maybe  he 
is  right.  Maybe  some  new  and  happier  form  may  be 
found.  We  can  never  be  positively  certain  about  the 
future.  But  be  this  as  it  may,  we  may  be  sure  that 
society  will  find  a  form  of  order  and  government  com- 
patible with  a  general  enjoyment  of  its  immense  wealth, 
compatible  with  a  more  universally  beneficial  use  of  its 
unlimited  productive  force  and  compatible  with  its  con- 
stantly growing  democratical  sentiment. 

The  exact  outlines  of  this  form  are,  I  repeat,  not 
distinctly  visible  yet.  And  although  it  is  quite  appar- 
ent that  it  will  be  the  result  of  continuous  social  and 
economic  struggles,  which  in  their  nature  are  class 
struggles,  it  cannot  even  be  predicted  with  any  degree  of 
certainty  what  forms  these  struggles  may  yet  assume. 
We  can  only  hope  and  wish  that  modern  parliamenta- 


THE  STATE  183 

rism  may  be  able  to  reduce  violent  and  convulsive 
movements  to  a  minimum.  That  it  cannot  prevent  them 
altogether,  we  have  had  ample  proof.  For  there  is  one 
class  that  has  little,  if  anything,  to  lose  and  everything 
to  gain,  and  another  that  has  far  more  to  lose  than  to 
gain  in  the  settlement  of  the  great  social  conflicts.  So 
far  very  little,  if  any,  ability  has  manifested  itself  to  set- 
tle the  conflict  between  justice  and  evolution  on  one  side 
and  personal  or  class  interest  on  the  other  with  intelli- 
gence and  good  will  and  in  a  spirit  of  love  and  kindness. 
The  indications  rather  point  to  the  contrary. 

The  world,  as  it  is,  is  governed  by  motives  of  selfish- 
ness, not  from  choice,  nor  from  natural  inclination,  but 
from  force  of  conditions.  The  individual,  however  char- 
itably and  philanthropically  inclined,  is  powerless  to 
direct  the  course  of  class-movements  in  opposition  to 
the  interests  of  the  class.  Upon  the  other  hand,  there 
are  many  instances  of  cruelty  and  tyranny  of  men,  nat- 
urally kind  and  humane,  but  actuated  by  certain  con- 
ceptions of  right  and  wrong  and  firmly  believing  in  the 
justice,  righteousness  and  necessity  of  their  course.  I 
do  not  know  of  any  instance  in  the  history  of  the  human 
race  where  any  concessions  in  the  direction  of  greater 
rights  or  greater  freedom  of  the  masses  have  volun- 
tarily been  granted  by  the  rulers  to  the  ruled,  although 
not  infrequently  concessions  made  some  time  after  the 
defeat  of  revolutionary  movements  had  the  appearance 
of  being  voluntary.  During  the  whole  course  of  human 
history  there  was  no  establishment  of  liberty,  or  greater 
rights  of  the  lower  classes,  or  better  conditions  of  the 
masses,  except  as  the  result  of  never-resting  class  strug- 
gles. In  asserting  this,  the  wish  is  not  father  of  the 


184  LOOKING  FORWARD 

thought;  for  I  greatly  wish  that  it  were  different.  But 
history  is  history,  and  we  must  take  the  facts  as  it  rec- 
ords them. 

Much  has  been  accomplished  toward  the  settlement 
of  modern  social  conflicts  in  a  manner  free  from  phys- 
ical violence  in  Australia  and  New  Zealand  by  the  or- 
ganization of  labor  parties  and  the  use  of  parliamentary 
methods.  To  some  extent  this  looks  encouraging.  But 
it  should  not  be  overlooked  that  those  countries,  com- 
pared with  America  and  Europe  are  industrially  poorly 
developed  and  that  most  of  their  population  is  concen- 
trated in  cities.  The  socialistic  tendency  of  their  legis- 
lation is  easily  recognizable,  but  what  it  will  lead  to  in 
the  end  cannot  yet  be  seen. 

However,  speaking  generally,  the  fact  that  the  forms 
of  the  future  economic  structure  and  political  govern- 
ment can  only  be  surmised  but  not  definitely  predicted, 
need  not  be  a  matter  of  grave  concern.  We  may  safely 
act  on  probabilities,  and  no  harm  can  come  from  treat- 
ing as  positive  what,  as  long  as  man  has  only  human 
powers,  can,  at  best,  be  only  probable.  The  thinker  and 
student  requires  not  more  than  a  scientifically  deduced 
probability.  The  masses,  however,  need  definite  hope, 
a  definite  goal,  a  definite  ideal.  The  higher  that  ideal, 
the  nobler  and  loftier  the  sentiments  created  by  it.  The 
masses  need  an  aim,  an  object,  true  enough  to  appeal 
to  their  intellect,  beautiful  enough  to  appeal  to  their 
longings  and  great  enough  to  satisfy  their  yearnings  for 
a  complete  enjoyment  of  the  gifts  of  nature  and  the 
blessings  of  culture  and  civilization.  Where  such  an 
ideal  is  wanting,  or  where  no  attemots  are  made  tovarJ 
its  realization  ana  tiie  struggle  tor  oetter  condaions  is 


THE  STATE  185 

confined  merely  to  present  possibilities,  violent  outbreaks 
are  almost  unavoidable.  Political  economy,  as  officially 
taught,  contains  nothing  that  is  apt  to  create  such  an 
ideal,  and  its  few  sentimental  generalities  are  more  a 
sign  of  utter  hopelessness  and  helplessness  than  of  hope. 


VII. 

THE  MODERN  ECONOMIC  SYSTEM. 

It  is  said  of  the  tutor  of  king  Gustavus  Adolphus  of 
Sweden,  the  celebrated  chancellor  Oxenstierna,  that  he 
once  said  to  his  pupil :  "My  son,  you  have  no  idea  with 
how  little  good  sense  and  reason  the  world  is  governed." 
Indeed,  it  seems  that  the  world  is  oftener  governed  by 
follies  and  absurdities  than  by  wise  and  prudent  meas- 
ures. But  I  believe  that  the  world  cannot  always  be 
governed  by  follies,  absurdities  and  inconsistencies,  cer- 
tainly not  by  the  same  ones. 

As  far  as  economics  are  concerned,  absurdities  and 
inconsistencies  arise  by  development.  That  is  to  say, 
institutions  which,  in  their  beginning,  appear  quite  sen- 
sible, nay,  even  necessary,  breed  in  course  of  time  ab- 
surdities by  unforeseen  and  unintended  effects.  When- 
ever these  absurdities  appear,  it  is  a  sure  sign  that  the 
prevailing  economic  system  is  reaching  its  climax,  that 
it  has  become  inconsistent  with  the  best  interests  of  soci- 
ety, and  that  the  end  of  its  career  is  approaching.  I 
think,  therefore,  that  a  statement  of'  some  of  the  absurd- 
ities, inconsistencies  and  peculiarities  of  the  modern  eco- 
nomic system  will  be  quite  instructive. 

This  system  is,  in  one  sense,  based  upon  the  princi- 
ple of  freedom  of  contract.  But  in  giving  effect  to  this 
principle,  freedom  is  considered  from  a  political  and  not 
from  an  economic  standpoint,  although  most  contracts 
are  of  an  economic  character.  The  contract  of  a  minor, 

186 


THE  MODERN  ECONOMIC  SYSTEM  187 

for  instance,  be  he  ever  so  intelligent,  is  invalid,  but  the 
contract  of  a  hungry  man  is  valid.  A  man  contracting 
under  threats  of  violence  is  considered  to  act  under 
duress,  but  the  man  who  accepts  a  very  dangerous,  or 
very  loathsome,  or  very  ill-paying  employment,  because 
of  his  fear  that  he  may  find  no  other  employment,  and 
would  be  in  danger  of  starving,  if  he  refused  it,  is  con- 
sidered in  law  a  free  agent.  Considering  the  condition 
of  the  average  employee,  it  is  quite  clear  that  his  freedom 
of  contract  is  nothing  but  a  legal  fiction.  Yet,  it  is  upon 
this  legal  fiction  that  courts  have  repeatedly  set  aside  as 
unconstitutional  legislative  enactments  for  the  abolition 
of  certain  abuses  in  the  treatment  of  workingmen,  as  for 
instance  the  truck  system.  The  law,  based  upon,  or 
rather  being  the  fruit  of,  our  economic  system,  presup- 
poses a  freedom  of  will,  where  there  is  no  freedom  of 
choice — a  palpable  impossibility.  Or  it  assumes  the  free- 
dom  of  choice  on  the  part  of  the  working  classes — a  pal- 
pable error. 

The  inability  of  our  jurists  to  distinguish  between 
man  as  a  citizen,  that  is,  as  a  political  being,  and  man 
as  an  individual,  that  is,  as  a  natural  being,  has  led  to 
another  anomaly,  namely,  the  legal  fiction  of  equality. 
Ignoring  economic  inequalities,  and  accepting  political 
equality  as  an  existing  fact,  they  insist  upon  legislation 
which  affects  all  classes  equally.  This,  however,  is 
impossible.  If  the  legislator  legislates  in  favor  of  the 
laborer  by  limiting  the  hours  of  labor,  or  prescribing 
certain  rules  of  payment  of  wages,  the  courts,  under  the 
fiction  of  civil  equality  and  protection  of  the  rights  of 
contract  and  property,  declare  such  laws  to  be  class-leg- 
islation and,  therefore,  unconstitutional. 

Obviously,  only  such  legislation  is  judicially  declared 


188  LOOKING  FORWARD 

to  be  class-legislation  which  affects  the  interests  of  the 
ruling  class  unfavorably.  Laws  rendering  illegal  con- 
tracts for  the  payment  of  wages  in  anything  else  but 
money,  or  in  longer  than  certain  periods,  have  been  de- 
clared unconstitutional  as  class-legislation  and  because 
they  rob  the  laborer  of  his  freedom  to  contract  as  he 
pleases  for  the  sale  of  his  labor,  which  is  his  property. 
Does  this  principle  not  apply  to  the  money  lender  as  well 
as  to  the  laborer  ?  Do  usury  laws  not  violate  the  freedom 
of  contract  ?  Why  is  the  money  lender's  freedom  of  con- 
tract not  protected?  Simply  because  usury  laws — which 
now  have  the  sanctity  of  age — are  of  feudal  origin  and 
served  to  protect  the  ruling  class. 

But  how  can  theories  of  property  be  applied  to  labor 
force  ?  By  another  fiction  :  the  fiction  that  labor  is  prop- 
erty, for  the  sale  of  which  the  laborer  who  sells  it  must 
be  as  free  to  contract  as  for  the  sale  of  any  other  prop- 
erty. But  labor-force  lacks  all  the  elements  of  property. 
The  seller  cannot  divest  himself,  nor  be  dispossessed  of 
it,  without  either  suicide  or  homicide.  It  exists  and  dies 
with  the  laborer  himself.  What  property  rights  could 
the  purchaser  of  labor  assert,  if  he  should  pay  for  it  in 
advance  and  the  seller  should  refuse  to  work?  Labor 
cannot  be  replevied,  it  cannot  be  taken  on  execution,  it 
cannot  be  attached,  it  does  not  go  into  the  hands  of  the 
administrator,  nor  descends  to  heirs.  It  is  inseparable 
from  man,  it  is  man  himself.  Labor  can  only  be  prop- 
erty, if  the  laborer  himself  is  property.  Consequently 
only  slave  labor  can  be  property,  but  not  wage  labor. 

Thus  to  prevent  legislation  favorable  to  the  laborer, 
courts  pretend  to  protect  the  laborer's  fictitious  liberty 
and  protect  it  by  impregnating  wage  labor  with  the 
characteristics  of  slave  labor. 


THE  MODERN  ECONOMIC  SYSTEM  189 

'Can  anything  be  more  absurd? 

Legal  fictions  have,  taken  the  place  of  class-privileges 
of  former  times  and  they  preserve  economic  inequality 
with  equal  effect.  Theoretically,  that  is  politically,  we 
all  have  the  same  right  to  become  rich,  but  how  could 
the  wage  system  be  maintained  without  a  poor  class? 
In  practice,  the  conditions  are  those  of  a  lottery,  in 
which  everyone  taking  a  chance  may  win,  but  in  which 
the  gains  of  the  winners  are  made  up  of  the  losses  of 
the  losers. 

There  is  a  conflict  between  theory  and  practice. 
Economic  conditions  make  the  exercise  of  political  free- 
dom and  equality,  principally  in  matters  of  contract,  im- 
possible to  a  certain  class  of  citizens.  Whether  a  right 
does  not  exist,  or  cannot  practically  be  used,  the  effect 
is  the  same.  But  how  do  our  jurists  get  out  of  the 
dilemma  ?  By  the  fiction  that,  if  one  does  what  he  would 
prefer  not  to  do,  were  he  not  by  circumstances  com- 
pelled to  do  it,  his  action  is  nevertheless  that  of  his  own 
free  will.  They  insist  upon  the  existence  of  equality 
and  the  absence  of  classes,  because  the  law  grants  no 
privileges. 

It  is  one  of  the  characteristics  of  our  economic  sys- 
tem that,  working  only  through  the  effect  of  conditions 
and  not  through  express  legal  enactments,  its  modus 
operandi  is  so  difficult  to  understand.  The  relations  of 
the  slave  to  his  master  and  of  the  serf  to  his  lord,  are  so 
simple  and  transparent  that  their  effect  can  be  compre- 
hended without  trouble.  The  relation  of  the  wage- 
worker,  however,  who  apparently  receives  for  his  work 
all  that  it  seems  to  be  worth,  and  yet  remains  poor,  while 
the  purchaser  of  his  labor  is  in  a  condition  to  grow  rich 
and  frequently  does  grow  rich,  is  quite  a  complicated 


190  LOOKING  FORWARD 

matter  which  requires  a  great  deal  of  study  for  its 
understanding.  Hence  the  difficulty  of  comprehending 
the  source  of  the  capitalist's  power  and  the  slowness  of 
movements  for  economic  reforms. 

References  to  such  movements  are  frequently  brushed 
aside  with  a  wave  of  the  hand  and  the  careless  remark 
that  there  have  been  always  rich  and  poor,  and  that  there 
always  will  be  such.  Of  course,  if  is  unnecessary  to  say 
that  the  fact  that  a  thing  was,  is  no  proof  that  it  will  be. 
The  poverty  of  the  laborer  of  former  periods  was  the 
direct  result  of  the  force  of  law  and  only  the  indirect 
result  of  the  force  of  conditions,  while  his  poverty  at 
present  is  the  direct  result  of  the  force  of  conditions 
and  only  the  indirect  result  of  the  force  of  law. 

Wealth  is  created  by  production.  This  requires  no 
explanation.  But  the  distribution  of  wealth  is  not  regu- 
lated by  production  but  by  the  manipulation  of  the  pro- 
ducts, which  in  itself  creates  nothing.  If  I  have  lumber 
of  the  value  of  five  dollars  and  make  out  of  that  lum- 
ber a  table  worth  twenty  dollars,  I  have  by  my  labor 
produced  a  value  of  fifteen  dollars.  The  general  stock 
of  products,  the  wealth  existing,  has  been  increased  by 
so  much.  Now,  if  somebody  gives  me  twenty  dollars 
for  the  table  and  afterwards  sells  it  for  twenty-five  dol- 
lars, no  new  wealth  has  been  produced  by  that  process; 
there  are  neither  more  tables  in  the  world,  nor  more 
money;  yet  somebody  has  five  dollars  more  than  he  had 
before.  The  table  may  be  sold  a  second  time  and  bring 
thirty  dollars,  and  again  somebody  has  five  dollars  more 
than  he  had  before,  although  there  are  neither  more 
tables  nor  more  money  in  the  world.  Of  course,  I  know 
that  a  pseudo  science  explains  that  value  is  added  to  the 
table  by  bringing  it  nearer  to  the  consumer,  but  this  is 


THE  MODERN  ECONOMIC  SYSTEM  191 

merely  an  excuse  for  a  system  which  adds  to  price  with- 
out adding  to  value  and  confounds  both.  The  table  is 
always  the  same  table,  and  no  number  of  sales  can  elim- 
inate the  fact  that  exchange  creates  nothing  and  that 
only  production  creates  wealth.  Yet,  a  large  class  of 
people  grow  wealthy  merely  by  exchange,  and  it  is  the 
special  characteristic  of  modern  industry  that  it  pro- 
duces merely  for  the  purpose  of  exchange.  The  earliest 
mode  of  production  was  home  production  coupled  with 
home  consumption;  slaves  and  serfs  produced  what  was 
immediately  consumed  at  home.  Later  on,  the  immedi- 
ate object  of  production  was  consumption  by  somebody 
else  but  the  producer;  if  I  needed  a  coat,  I  went  to  the 
tailor  and  had  one  made;  if  I  needed  a  pair  of  shoes, 
the  cobbler  made  them  for  me,  and  I  wore  them ;  but  the 
object  of  modern  production  is  exchange,  or  as  it  is 
called,  trade  and  commerce.  Between  the  producer  and 
the  consumer  there  is  a  great  distance;  they  do  not 
know  each  other,  they  do  not  see  each  other.  Between 
them  is  the  manipulator  of  the  product.  The  products 
are  merchandise  before  they  become  articles  of  consump- 
tion. The  result  of  this  special  characteristic  of  mod- 
ern production  is  overproduction  where  there  is  want, 
and  overpopulation  where  there  is  a  natural  possibility 
of  supporting  a  much  larger  population. 

The  extent  of  the  United  States,  the  general  re- 
sources and  the  natural  wealth  of  the  country  could 
probably  support  a  population  ten  or  more  times  as 
large  as  it  is  now.  Comparing  the  population  of  the 
United  States  with  that  of  Europe,  in  respect  of  den- 
sity, this  assertion  is  perfectly  justified.  Yet  the  physi- 
cian complains  that  there  are  too  many  physicians,  the 
lawyer  that  there  are  too  many  lawyers,  the  merchant 


192  LOOKING  FORWARD 

that  there  are  too  many  merchants,  the  laborer  that  there 
ar  too  many  laborers,  and  so  forth.  It  seems  as  if  there 
were  too  many  everywhere,  and  as  if  the  absurd  Malthu- 
sian  theory  that  the  earth  cannot  produce  enough  for  its 
growing  population  were  actually  true.  And  that  in  an 
age  in  which  the  productive  power  of  man  exceeds  many 
times  his  power  of  consumption !  Upon  the  other  hand, 
the  population  of  Ireland  has  within  not  much  more  than 
a  hundred  years  declined  about  one-half  without  improv- 
ing the  situation  and  making  an  end  of  the  seeming  con- 
dition of  overpopulation. 

There  is  scarcely  a  branch  of  industry  in  which  from 
time  to  time  a  condition  of  the  market  does  not  appear 
which  is  ascribed  to  overproduction.  Has  there  been  a 
change  in  the  natural  condition  of  men?  Do  they  eat 
less,  do  they  drink  less,  do  they  wear  less?  Has  their 
natural  power  of  consumption  decreased?  Not  at  all. 
Overproduction  has  no  reference  whatever  either  to  the 
number  of  human  beings  in  existence,  nor  to  their  needs 
or  their  natural  power  of  consumption;  it  has  reference 
only  to  an  artificially  created  condition,  in  which  people 
have  not  the  means  wherewith  to  buy  what  they  need. 
The  natural  power  of  consumption  has  remained  the 
same,  but  the  economic  power  of  consumption  is  not  the 
same.  Both  are  so  different  from  each  other  that  there 
may  be  a  condition  of  overproduction  in  a  thing  of  which 
millions  are  sorely  in  need  and  suffer  for  the  want  of  it. 

Considered  in  the  abstract,  such  a  condition  is  absurd. 
In  former  periods  overproduction  would  have  been  the 
source  of  joy;  it  would  have  meant  luxury,  plentiful- 
ness.  In  our  times  it  is  the  source  of  want  and  misery. 
If,  speaking  in  the  language  of  the  religiously  ortho- 
dox, God  should  take  it  in  his  mind  to  punish  the  wheat- 


THE  MODERN  ECONOMIC  SYSTEM  193 

growers  of  Russia,  Hungary  and  Argentina  by  letting  it 
rain  too  much,  and  curtailing  their  portion  of  sunshine, 
blessing  at  the  same  time  the  American  farmers  with 
enormous  crops,  the  latter  will  kneel  in  prayer  and  thank 
God  for  his  great  kindness.  But  if  God  should  be  equally 
kind  to  all  the  wheat-growers  of  the  world,  the  Amer- 
ican farmer,  instead  of  thanking  God  for  his  kindness, 
will  raise  the  cry  of  ruin  and  advocate  the  free  coinage 
of  silver.  Of  course,  two  hundred  bushels  of  wheat  go 
in  their  feeding  capacity  just  twice  as  far  as  one  hun- 
dred bushels,  and  represent  twice  as  much  actual  wealth, 
but  the  farmer  does  not  consider  actual  wealth,  but 
wealth  as  expressed  in  dollars  and  cents;  to  him  wheat 
is  not  an  article  of  consumption,  but  an  article  of  trade, 
and  over-abundant  crops  may  result  in  such  a  falling  of 
the  price  that  they  make  him  actually  poorer.  His  wheat 
is  growing  on  the  field,  but  his  wealth  is  made  on  that 
mysterious  thing  which  is  called  the  market.  Absurd  as 
it  sounds,  it  is  nevertheless  true,  that  in  modern  indus- 
try it  is  practically  sought  to  create  wealth  by  restrain- 
ing its  production.  For  the  producer  produces  what  he 
does  not  need  or  Use  for  himself,  and  his  product  is  only 
of  value  to  him  in  proportion  as  it  brings  him  dollars 
and  cents.  So  it  comes  that  our  industrial  system  re- 
sults in  underproduction  compared  with  the  natural 
power  of  consumption,  and  in  overproduction,  compared 
with  the  economic  power  of  consumption,  all  of  which 
is  a  poverty  and  misery  creating  absurd  condition,  most 
detrimental  to  the  welfare  of  the  masses  of  the  people. 
Everybody  is  aware  of  the  wonderful  growth  of  the 
power  of  production  in  modern  times.  It  is  so  stupen- 
dous that  it  baffles  description.  In  some  instances  pro- 
duction by  machinery  is  more  than  a  hundred  times  as 


194  BOOKING  FORWARD 

effective  as  production  by  hand.  The  productive  power 
of  our  generation  is  practically  unlimited.  I  cannot  but 
think  that  if  there  were  in  existence  an  individual  en- 
dowed with  authority  of  directing  all  production  and 
distribution,  and  being  perfectly  just  to  all,  he  would  see 
to  it  that  there  is  enough  produced  of  everything,  and 
that  it  is  distributed  so,  that  every  person  could  live  in 
comfort.  As  far  as  our  productive  power  is  concerned, 
that  would  be  perfectly  possible  without  being  stingy  in 
the  allotment  of  time  for  leisure  and  recreation.  I  can- 
not help  thinking  that  if  the  economic  affairs  of  the 
world  were  directed  by  one  will,  guided  by  reason  and 
justice,  the  wonderful  growth  of  the  power  of  produc- 
tion by  the  invention  of  mechanical  contrivances  would 
have  resulted  in  less  labor  and  more  comfort  for  each 
and  would  have  become  a  blessing  for  all  mankind,  ele- 
vating them  physically,  morally  and  intellectually.  In- 
stead of  this,  what  do  we  behold? 

First,  that  the  hours  of  labor  are  as  long,  or  nearly 
as  long,  as  they  were  before  the  invention  of  machinery. 
John  Stuart  Mill  says  somewhere  that  he  doubts  that 
by  the  invention  of  machinery  a  single  hour  of  labor  was 
saved  to  anyone. 

Secondly,  that  we  have  among  us  probably  as  many 
paupers  as  the  world  ever  had,  and  that  among  the 
masses  of  the  people  there  is  perhaps  as  much  want  and 
misery  as  there  ever  was. 

There  is  no  doubt  but  that  workingmen  to-day  enjoy 
many  comforts  which  were  not  within  their  reach  a  cen- 
tury and  more  ago,  but  food,  clothing  and  shelter  were 
as  necessary  to  them  then  as  they  are  now.  Yet  with  a 
productive  power  infinitely  small  compared  with  that  of 
the  present  generation,  without  the  aid  of  almost  any 


THE  MODERN  ECONOMIC  SYSTEM  195 

machinery,  the  working  classes  produced  not  only  the 
necessaries  of  life  for  themselves,  but  also  for  those  who 
produced  nothing.  They  produced,  as  they  do  to-day, 
all  articles  of  luxury  for  the  rich  and  the  privileged 
classes;  they  built  their  palaces,  wove  their  velvets  and 
silks,  carved  their  costly  furniture  and  erected  churches 
and  other  public  edifices  of  remarkable  beauty  and  grand- 
eur. Reasoning  backward,  from  the  fact  that  in  spite 
of  our  enormous  power  of  production,  we  do  not  pro- 
duce enough  for  the  comfort  of  all,  we  are  almost  un- 
able to  understand  how  that  was  possible,  and  how  pro- 
duction at  that  time  did  not  fall  far  short  of  the  imme- 
diate wants  of  the  people.  If  sumptuary  laws  would  not 
prove  the  contrary,  one  would  feel  inclined  to  believe 
that  poverty,  want  and  misery  were  the  lot  of  almost  the 
whole  working  population.  But  such  was  not  the  case, 
and  if  we  could  believe  in  the  truth  of  all  the  romantic 
stories  of  former  times,  human  happiness  was  rather 
more  general  than  it  is  now.  Be  that,  however,  as  it 
may,  it  is  positively  certain  that  the  comfort  and  the  wel- 
fare of  the  masses  have  grown  in  infinitely  smaller  pro- 
portions than  the  power  of  production. 

If,  prior  to  the  age  of  machinery,  it  was  possible  for 
every  worker  to  produce  by  mere  handicraft  a  surplus 
over  and  above  the  necessaries  of  life  for  himself  and  his 
family,  we  can  form  some  judgment  as  to  how  large  that 
surplus  must  be  to-day  without  going  into  intricate  cal- 
culations. 

I  do  not  care  to  examine  carefully  and  in  detail  the 
causes  which  make  necessary  the  production  of  such  an 
enormous  surplus;  that  would  require  a  complete  analy- 
sis of  our  economic  system;  but  it  would  be  a  mistake 
to  believe  that  it  all  goes  into  the  pockets  of  the  factory- 


196  BOOKING  FORWARD 

owners,  although  much  of  it  travels  that  way.  The 
larger  part  of  it,  I  believe,  must  serve  to  support  a 
numerous  non-productive  class  which  appeared  in  the 
wake  of  competition  and  manufacturing  for  the  purpose 
of  trade.  I  have  reference  to  the  immense  number  of 
middlemen  and  go-betweens,  to  all  those  who  do  not 
sell  their  own  goods  or  the  products  of  their  own  estab- 
lishments. Only  a  few  hundred  years  ago,  when  me- 
chanics and  artisans  simply  executed  the  orders  of  their 
consuming  customers,  and  commerce  was  small  and  of 
modest  extent,  there  was  in  the  economic  world  very 
little,  if  any,  room  for  traders,  agents,  drummers,  bro- 
kers, commissioners,  solicitors  and  so  forth,  all  of  whom 
consume  necessaries  of  life  without  producing  any. 

It  is  a  queer  world  in  which  we  live.  In  our  younger 
years,  when  our  senses  are  strong  and  vigorous,  when 
our  souls  yearn  for  the  enjoyment  of  life,  and  our  hearts 
are  receptive  of  all  that  nature  and  civilization  offers, 
we  must  forego  many  comforts  and  pleasures  and  sup- 
press many  desires,  because  life,  health  and  economic 
existence  are  equally  uncertain,  and  we  must,  if  such  is 
possible,  lay  by,  economize,  save.  If  we  are  fortunate 
and  succeed,  and  are,  as  the  years  go  by,  able  to  accumu- 
late a  competence,  we  grow  old  in  the  meantime,  and 
lose  the  physical  and  mental  vigor  to  fully  enjoy  life. 
Cur  economic  and  social  arrangements  rob  the  majority 
of  the  civilized  human  beings  of  a  full  realization  of  the 
pleasures  of  life  in  the  age  which  alone  permits  their 
full  realization,  and  later,  in  the  age  in  which  it  would 
be  economically  possible,  nature  forbids  it.  As  far  as 
individual  happiness  is  concerned,  it  is  a  question  whether 
the  tramp  who  looks  with  contempt  on  all  that  civiliza- 
tion offers  is  not  happier  than  the  decent  and  respectable 


THE  MODERN  ECONOMIC  SYSTEM  197 

member  of  society,  and  whether  civilization  has  increased 
the  amount  of  happiness  in  the  world.  Fortunately,  we 
have  good  reasons  to  believe  in  the  progressive  power  of 
civilization,  leading  to  a  different  and  better  future. 

When  the  young  man  enters  the  business  world  and 
commences  his  career,  he  is  admonished  to  save.  From 
the  standpoint  of  private  economy,  the  advice  is  certainly 
good,  but  from  a  politico-economic  standpoint  it  is  sim- 
ply nonsense.  Can  anything  be  savfcd?  Is  not  every- 
thing in  the  world,  no  matter  how  lasting  it  is,  destroyed 
in  the  end,  if  not  by  use,  then  by  the  ravages  of  nature  ? 
To  save  is  an  entirely  negative  proposition'.  If  I  save 
the  money  for  a  pair  of  shoes,  it  does  not  mean  that  I 
save  five  dollars  from  destruction,  because  the  five  dol- 
lars which  I  would  expend  for  the  shoes  would  still  con- 
tinue their  existence,  but  it  means  the  nonproduction 
of  a  pair  of  shoes.  Nothing  is  saved  in  reality,  but  pro- 
duction is  restrained.  While  it  is  commonly  believed 
that  saving  creates  wealth,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  pre- 
vents the  creation  of  wealth.  Accumulation  of  wealth 
and  production  of  wealth  are  two  different  things;  the 
latter  is  possible  without  the  former,  but  the  former  is 
not  possible  without  the  latter.  Our  economic  system 
has  produced  such  a  remarkable  conflict  between  private 
economy  and  political  economy  that  the  individual  can 
almost  do  nothing  to  benefit  himself  without  injury  to 
the  body  politic. 

Defenders  of  our  economic  system  not  unfrequently 
advance  the  theory  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest.  The 
theory  is  not  as  modest  as  that  of  the  theologian  who 
believes  that  God  has  put  everyone  into  his  proper  place, 
but  as  applied  it  is  just  as  comfortable  and  convenient. 
Since  the  appearance  of  Darwin's  epoch-making  book  on 


198  LOOKING  FORWARD 

"The  Origin  of  Species,"  the  words  evolution  and  sur- 
vival of  the  fittest  are  in  everybody's  mouth,  but  by  no 
means  fully  understood  by  everybody.  There  is  cer- 
tainly a  great  difference  between  the  struggle  for  exist- 
ence in  nature  and  the  struggle  for  existence  in  society, 
and  it  is,  to  say  the  least,  an  unsettled  question  whether 
the  theory  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest  is  equally  applica- 
ble to  both.  Granted,  however,  for  argument's  sake, 
that  it  is,  and  that  economic  success  is  the  measure  of 
fitness,  what  would  follow?  That  the  fittest  in  human 
society  is  the  one  who  can  make  the  most  money,  the 
one  who  possesses,  in  the  highest  degree,  those  faculties 
which  make  possible  the  accumulation  of  a  fortune.  We 
would  be  forced  to  conclude  that  the  man  is  so  much 
fitter  as  a  social  being  as  he  can  gather  wealth,  and  that, 
as  things  are  going  under  our  economic  arrangements, 
and  not  to  speak  of  men  of  letters,  science  or  art,  the 
man  who  can  make  a  table  out  of  raw  wood  is  less  fit, 
and,  consequently,  a  less  useful  member  of  society,  than 
the  one  who  can  sell  it  with  a  profit.  Yet,  I  must  con- 
fess that  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  if  those  who  have  the 
particular  faculty  of  selling  tables  at  a  profit  should  not 
survive,  one  might  have  tables  nevertheless ;  but  if  those 
who  can  make  tables  should  fail  to  survive,  I  am  at  a 
loss  to  see  how  we  should  get  them. 

According  to  the  Darwinian  theory,  faculties,  char- 
acteristics, talents  and  aptitudes  grow  in  strength  by 
their  use  in  the  struggle  for  existence.  If  we  reflect  for 
a  moment  what  particular  qualifications  and  proficiencies 
are  necessary  for  making  money,  how  seldom  it  is  that 
men  of  great  minds  and  genius,  students  and  men  of 
great  learning  succeed  in  making  money,  how  much  bet- 
ter the  chances  of  the  reckless  and  inconsiderate  are 


THE  MODERN  ECONOMIC  SYSTEM  199 

than  those  of  the  careful,  timid  and  noble-minded,  it 
would  be,  indeed,  quite  a  peculiar  kind  of  society  in 
which  the  money-making  persons  are  the  fittest  and  will 
therefore  survive  the  others. 

It  is  very  often  asserted  that  genius  and  talent  will 
always  succeed  in  the  end,  even  if  they  have  to  overcome 
many  obstacles.  This  is  said  without  much  knowledge 
and  thought.  The  fact  that  genius  and  talent  succeed 
in  some  cases  under  adverse  conditions  is  no  proof  that 
they  succeed  in  all  cases.  The  world  does  not  mention 
those  who  fail  under  adverse  conditions,  and  history 
learns  not  of  them.  If  it  were  not  so,  we  would  prob- 
ably have  knowledge  of  more  geniuses  and  more  talents. 
Genius  and  talent  are  natural  gifts,  and  nature  is  lavish. 
More  than  ten  generations  have  come  and  gone  since  the 
birth  of  Shakespeare.  Averaging  each  generation  at 
fifty  millions  of  English  speaking  people,  more  than  five 
hundred  millions  have  come  into  the  world  and  gone 
from  it  since  that  time.  I  do  not  and  cannot  believe 
that  nature,  so  profuse  in  its  creations,  should  have  cre- 
ated the  genius  of  a  Shakespeare  only  once  among  five 
hundred  millions  of  human  beings,  not  to  speak  of  those 
who  lived  before  Shakespeare,  nor  those  who  will  live 
after  us.  I  am  far  more  inclined  to  believe  that  nature 
has  created  many  Shakespeares  but  that  economic  and 
social  conditions  did  not  allow  them  to  grow  and  develop. 

Has  any  one  ever  been  able  to  count  those  geniuses 
and  talents  that  went  under  in  the  struggle  for  daily 
bread,  those  who  had  to  give  up  their  ideals  and  sacri- 
fice their  ambitions,  because  they  first  needed  a  liveli- 
hood? Has  any  one  ever  been  able  to  count  those  chil- 
dren born  in  poverty,  but  gifted  by  nature  with  genius 
or  talent,  and  never  receiving  the  education  necessary  for 


200  LOOKING  FORWARD 

its  development,  either  because  the  parents  on  account  of 
their  poverty  could  not  afford  it,  or  in  their  ignorance, 
generally  also  the  result  of  poverty,  were  unable  to  dis- 
cover genius  or  talent?  Genius  and  talent  need  free- 
dom from,  care  for  their  development.  Even  those  gifted 
with  an  inventive  genius  succeed  only  if  the  result  of 
their  genius  can  be  readily  transformed  into  money  by 
capitalists,  and  even  then  it  is  generally  the  capitalist  who 
gets  the  lion's  share. 

Privileged  classes  and  their  governments  have  al- 
ways taken  pride  in  fostering  and  protecting  arts  and 
science,  and  have  given  many  a  chance  to  the  develop- 
ment of  discovered  geniuses  or  talents.  But  "noblesse" 
does  not  "oblige"  the  economic  class  pure  and  simple. 
It  leaves  everything  to  private  or  business  enterprise. 
The  -richest  government  in  the  world,  that  of  the  United 
States,  has  not  to  this  day  thought  of  establishing  an  in- 
stitution like  the  universities  of  Germany  where  men  of 
science  are  given  the  opportunity  of  free  research.  The 
average  American  university  professor  is  still  not  more 
than  a  teacher  of  things  known  already,  forced  to  use 
all  his  time  in  endless  routine  work. 

I  am  not  at  all  inclined  to  show  things  in  their  most 
extreme  consequences,  nor  to  use  any  extravagant  lan- 
guage. Yet  when  labor  leaders  sometimes  say  that  the 
condition  of  the  modern  wage-worker  is  worse  than 
slavery,  I  must  admit  that  in  one  particular  respect  this 
is  undoubtedly  true.  The  slave  was  fed,  sheltered  and 
clothed.  Supposing  even  that  the  ordinary  common 
laborer  is  employed  all  the  year,  round,  he  can  hardly  do 
more  than  that  for  himself.  But  the  slave  had  his  price, 
and  the  wage-worker  has  not.  I  am  told  that  in  slavery 
times,  in  the  Southern  States,  an  able-bodied,  young 


THE;  MODERN  ECONOMIC  SYSTEM  201 

healthy  negro  cost  as  much  as  a  thousand  dollars.  Re- 
presenting thus  a  considerable  amount  of  capital  invest- 
ed, his  owner  had  good  cause  to  keep  him  healthy  and 
strong,  at  all  events  as  much  cause  as  the  owner  of  a 
valuable  horse  has  to  take  good  care  of  the  animal.  Such 
considerations  do  not  exist  in  modern  industry.  The 
large  modern  factory  employs  hands  which  have  to  per- 
form a  certain  amount'  of  labor ;  if  they  cannot  do  it,  the 
employer  has  no  further  use  for  them.  The  modern 
laborer  is  only  paid  while  he  works,  and  no  personal 
relations  of  any  kind  exist  between  employer  and  em- 
ployee; most  frequently  they  do  not  even  know  each 
other.  In  case  of  sickness,  old  age,  decrepitude  etc.,  the 
workingman  is  left  to  his  own  resources,  which  in  many 
cases  simply  mean  charity.  There  has  never  been*  an 
economic  system,  in  which  naked  materialism  governed 
all  relations  so  completely  as  the  modern. 

Some  time  ago  it  was  reported  in  the  newspapers  that 
certain  railroads  had  issued  an  order  not  only  to  employ 
nobody  above  the  age  of  forty-five,  but  even  to  discharge 
such  who  were  above  that  age  and  were  in  their  posi- 
tions only  a  certain  time.  While  this  was  done  openly, 
and  therefore  appeared  in  a  measure  startling,  yet  it  is 
a  fact  that  it  is  generally  very  difficult  for  persons  of 
advanced  age  to  find  employment,  because  it  is  of  more 
advantage  to  employ  persons  of  full  strength  and  vigor. 
It  is  a  cruelty  forced  upon  employers  who  have  person- 
ally no  wish  at  all  to  be  cruel.  This  cruel  effect  of  our 
economic  conditions  becomes  more  apparent  when  we 
reflect  how  difficult  it  has  gradually  become  to  start  a 
business  of  one's  own  without  capital,  and  how  the 
amount  of  capital  necessary  has  constantly  grown.  I  be- 
lieve that  the  majority  of  our  rich  business  men  who 


202  IX>OKING  FORWARD 

started  thirty  or  forty  years  ago  with  small  means,  could 
not  repeat  the  operation  to-day.  Statistics  show  that, 
in  proportion  to  the  growth  of  population,  the  number 
of  independent  owners  of  business-establishments  is  de- 
creasing, while  the  number  of  employees  is  correspond- 
ingly increasing,  a  fact  which,  of  necessity,  must  unfa- 
vorably influence  sturdiness  and  manliness  of  civil  char- 
acter. 

Whether  insanity  is  increasing  in  consequence  of  our 
economic  conditions,  as  is  frequently  stated,  or  whether 
this  increase  is  only  apparent  in  consequence  of  our  more 
humane  treatment  of  the  insane,  and  bringing  them  to- 
gether in  large  public  institutions,  I  will  not  investigate, 
but  that  modern  industrial  conditions  very  badly  affect 
the  physical  condition  of  the  workers,  and  have  a  phys- 
ically degenerating  effect  is  subject  to  statistical  proof. 
English  statistics  of  some  fifty  years  ago  show  that  the 
average  duration  of  life  in  England  was  thirty-four  and 
one  third  years.  In  manufacturing  cities,  however,  it 
was  different.  In  Leeds  the  average  duration  of  life 
was  twenty-one,  in  Manchester  twenty,  in  Liverpool 
seventeen  years.  Belgian  statistics  show  that  in  the  city 
of  Brussels  the  yearly  death  rate  is  one  out  of  fifty 
among  the  very  wealthy,  one  out  of  twenty-seven  among 
small  businessmen  and  mechanics  and  one  out  of  four- 
teen among  day  laborers.  The  French  stastician  Vil- 
lerme  showed  some  forty  years  ago  that  about  one-half 
of  the  children  of  spinners  and  weavers  in  the  city  of 
Milhouse  die  before  they  reach  the  second  year  of  age. 
(These  figures  are  taken  from  Ferdinand  Lassalle's 
Frankfort  speech.)  German  and  Swiss  statistics  show 
similar  results,  and  who  can  doubt  that  American  sta- 
tistics, if  there  were  any  of  this  character,  would  be  of 


THE  MODERN  ECONOMIC  SYSTEM  203 

the  same  kind?  I  recollect  that  during  the  great  strike 
of  the  Anthracite  miners  of  Pennsylvania  in  1903,  the 
government  sent  officers  into  the  mining  districts  to  re- 
cruit men  for  the  navy.  Their  efforts,  however,  proved 
futile,  because,  as  they  reported,  the  miners,  having  for 
years  been  underfed,  were  not  physically  fit  for  service 
in  the  navy. 

European  military  statistics  show  that  in  order  to 
complete  the  annual  recruiting  lists,  it  became  neces- 
sary to  constantly  reduce  the  required  size  of  the  men. 
Prior  to  the  great  revolution  it  was  in  France  165  centi- 
meters, it  was  gradually  reduced  until  in  1870  it  was 
only  154,  a  decrease  of  the  normal  height  of  the  human 
body  of  eleven  centimeters  within  one  century.  In 
Saxony,  in  1780,  the  required  height  was  178  centime- 
ters, in  1862  it  was  only  155. 

Three  years  ago,  the  newspapers  contained  the  fol- 
lowing dispatch:  London,  March  loth,  (1903).  The 
annual  report  of  the  inspector  general  of  the  British 
army,  which  has  just  been  issued,  confirms  many  previ- 
ous statements  that  the  physique  of  the  British  working 
class  is  deteriorating.  The  report  says  that  one  subject 
which  causes  anxiety  for  the  future  as  regards  recruit- 
ing is  the  gradual  deterioration  of  the  physique  of  the 
working  classes,  from  which  the  bulk  of  recruits  must 
always  be  drawn.  When  it  is  remembered  that  the  re- 
cruiters are  instructed  not  to  submit  candidates  for 
enlistment  for  medical  examination  unless  they  can  be 
reasonably  expected  to  pass  as  fit,  one  cannot  but  be 
struck  by  the  percentage,  namely,  32.22  considered  by 
the  medical  officers  unfit  for  service.  In  reports  from 
all  the  manufacturing  districts  stress  is  invariably  laid 
upon  the  number  of  men  medically  rejected. 


204  IX)OKING  FORWARD 

About  a  year  ago  the  newspapers  contained  the  fol- 
lowing : 

"Berlin,  March  4  (1905). — It  is  learned  from  reli- 
able sources  that  this  year's  conscription  in  Berlin  and 
vicinity  showed  remarkably  unfavorable  results,  inas- 
much as  a  large  percentage  of  the  young  recruits  is 
physically  incapable  of  military  service." 

Newspapers  recently  informed  their  readers  that  a 
Japanese  statesman  made  in  an  interview  the  statement 
that  Japan,  knowing  that  war  with  Russia  would  sooner 
or  later  become  inevitable,  preferred  to  fight  now,  be- 
cause it  was  feared  that  the  development  of  modern  in- 
dustry might  produce  such  physical  degeneration  that  the 
country  could  not  then  successfully  cope  with  Russia. 

No  commentary  could  add  to  the  impressiveness  of 
these  figures  and  statements. 

The  history  of  civilization  is  one  of  continued  saving 
of  human  labor  force  in  the  production  of  the  neces- 
saries of  life,  so  much  so  that  civilization  and  saving  of 
human  labor  force  are  almost  synonymous.  So  far, 
however,  the  result  of  it  has  not  been  less  work,  but 
more  effective  work  and  creation  of  more  wealth.  But 
the  time  will  come  when  the  practical  result  will  be  less 
work  and  more  leisure.  We  will  have  not  only  more 
but  also  better  machinery  than  now.  The  era  of  ma- 
chinery has  only  commenced.  The  time  will  come  when 
all  heavy  and  all  loathsome  work  will  be  done  by  auto- 
matic machinery  and  all  unpleasant  and  obnoxious  fea- 
tures of  labor  will  disappear.  This  will  result  in  an 
improvement  of  the  human  race  and  will  go  far  toward 
the  removal  of  the  physical  and  intellectual  distinctions 
between  the  different  classes  of  society.  For  it  cannot 
be  denied  that  continuous  heavy  physical  work  has  a 


THE  MODERN  ECONOMIC  SYSTEM  205 

brutalizing  effect,  that  continuous  dirty  work  kills  the 
aesthetic  sense,  and  that  the  monotony  of  modern  fac- 
tory labor  produces  dullness  of  mind  and  lack  of  ambi- 
tion. For  all  we  know,  there  may  still  be  natural  forces 
of  which  we  know  nothing  and  which  we  may  yet  dis- 
cover. The  science  of  electricity  is  still  in  its  infancy, 
and  the  time  will  come  when  the  triumph  of  human  in- 
tellect over  the  forces  of  nature  will  be  so  complete  that 
comparatively  little  physical  labor  will  be  necessary,  and 
the  performance  of  the  little  that  will  be  will  be  a 
pleasure. 

But  while  progress  in  production  ran  all  the  time  in 
the  direction  of  saving  human  labor  force,  the  develop- 
ment of  distribution  ran  in  the  opposite  direction.  The 
history  of  distribution  is,  at  least  for  the  last  hundred 
or  two  hundred  years,  a  history  of  an  enormous  waste 
of  human  labor  force.  It  is  one  of  the  characteristics 
of  the  competitive  system  that  it  costs  sometimes  more 
to  sell  an  article  than  to  make  it.  Speaking  generally, 
production  is  in  the  end  governed  by  consumption. 
Things  are  ultimately  bought  because  they  are  needed, 
not  because  they  are  offered  for  sale.  Yet,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  distance  between  producer  and  consumer, 
and  principally  in  consequence  of  competition,  an  enor- 
mous quantity  of  human  energy  is  employed  in  the 
efforts  to  sell.  The  result  of  these  efforts,  however,  is 
neither  a  general  increase  of  consumption  nor  a  general 
increase  of  production,  for  what  is  sold  by  one  remains 
unsold  by  another.  A  number  of  competing  shoe  man- 
ufacturers, for  instance,  may  send  out  ever  so  many 
salesmen,  there  is  not,  as  a  result  of  their  efforts,  a  sin- 
gle pair  of  shoes  more  consumed.  Every  increase  of 


206  LOOKING  FORWARD 

the  sales  of  one  manufacturer  must  necessarily  result  in 
a  corresponding  decrease  of  the  sales  of  the  other. 

An  enormous  amount  of  human  labor  force  is  prac- 
tically wasted  in  printing,  lithographing,  painting,  post- 
ing, and  so  forth,  for  no  other  purpose  but  advertising. 
Wasted,  because  the  products  of  that  labor  add  noth- 
ing to  human  comfort  and  the  stock  of  national  wealth, 
while  those  engaged  in  that  work  must,  for  their  prac- 
tical subsistence,  draw  on  the  stock  of  necessaries  of 
life  produced  by  others.  Yet,  so  absurd  is  OUT  eco- 
nomic system  that  this  waste  is  considered  a  boon  be- 
cause it  is  a  source  of  employment. 

This  waste  has  been  so  immense  that  reaction  was 
bound  to  follow.  It  came  in  the  shape  of  combinations, 
generally  called  trusts.  Of  course,  those  who  combined 
acted  not  from  motives  of  political  economy,  but  from 
motives  of  private  economy.  Business  men  are  not  in 
the  habit  of  studying  and  consulting  political  economy. 
They  are  not  philosophers,  but  judge  from  experience 
and  from  the  effect  of  economic  causes  on  their  private 
interests.  The  trust  was  created  because  competition  had 
become  ruinous.  It  had  developed  to  a  degree  where, 
instead  of  being  beneficial,  it  became  injurious.  The 
elements  of  self-destruction  in  the  system  commenced 
to  operate.  The  competitive  system  commenced  to  be- 
come enimical  to  the  best  interests  of  capital  and  entered 
the  first  stage  of  its  collapse.  For  a  long  time  consid- 
ered the  life  of  trade,  it  is  now  feared  that  it  may  be- 
come the  death  of  trade. 

What  the  trust  will  lead  to  is,  for  the  present,  hid- 
den in  the  future.  It  may  develop  into  a  system  of  its 
own,  lasting  for  some  time.  It  may  be  only  the  first 
stage  of  an  entirely  new  economic  system,  beginning  to 


THE  MODERN  ECONOMIC  SYSTEM  207 

develop.  In  neither  case  will  it  be  permanent.  It  is 
absolutely  impossible  that  society  will  suffer  the  perma- 
nency of  an  institution  which  invests  a  comparatively 
small  number  of  private  corporations  and  a  still  smaller 
number  of  gigantic  combinations,  with  the  power  of 
controlling  the  production,  the  exchange  and  the  trans- 
portation of  the  necessaries  of  life.  It  is  impossible  that 
society  will  forever  suffer  an  economic  institution  to, 
honestly  or  corruptly,  shape  legislation  and  influence  the 
administration  of  justice  in  the  interest  of  the  few  that 
possess  and  manipulate  the  wealth  of  the  country,  and 
to  rob  the  masses  of  the  people  of  every  shred  of  inde- 
pendence by  making  ninety-nine  out  of  a  hundred  the 
hired  servants  of  the  remaining  one.  The  best  inter- 
ests of  human  society  will  not  grant  the  private  trust  a 
very  long  existence.  Its  reign  is,  perhaps,  preparing  the 
advent  of  a  new  economic  order  of  society,  and  all 
efforts  to  destroy  it  merely  for  the  purpose  of 'maintain- 
ing or  re-establishing  the  reign  of  competition  will  prove 
futile.  Some  future  generation  may,  perhaps,  recognize 
in  it  the  beginning  of  the  gradual  application  of  the 
principle  of  association  as  the  basis  of  the  economic 
structure  of  society. 

Two  things,  I  believe,  may  be  taken  for  certain.  One 
is  the  fact  that  competition,  as  a  system,  is  in  its  death- 
struggle,  and  the  other  is  the  continuance  of  the  process 
of  combination  in  industry,  commerce  and  transporta- 
tion. Combinations  may  fail,  combination  will  go  on. 
At  the  same  time,  democratical  sentiment,  the  feeling  of 
self-esteem  and  the  confidence  in  their  own  power  will 
grow  among  the  masses  of  the  people.  They  thirst  more 
for  information  and  read  more  than  they  ever  did.  I 
believe  some  future  generation  will  deal  with  the  com- 


208  LOOKING  FORWARD 

binations  in  a  method  different  from  ours.  It  will,  prob- 
ably, not  waste  time  and  energy  in  fruitless  attempts  to 
destroy  what  evolution  has  produced,  but  will  try  to 
apply  it  to  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  nation.  It  will 
fully  understand  the  immense  value  of  combination  as 
an  instrument  for  the  saving  of  human  labor  force  and 
increasing  the  productiveness  of  its  application.  Human 
society  will  not  lose  and  sacrifice  this  effect,  but  will 
make  it  subservient  to  the  interests  of  the  whole  nation. 


VIII. 

CONCLUSION. 

Knowledge  of  the  past,  based  upon  contemporane- 
ous testimony,  reaches  back  some  fifty  or  sixty  centuries. 
Based  upon  surmise  and  conjecture,  resting  on  circum- 
stantial evidence,  it  looks  back  upon,  perhaps,  many  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  of  years.  When  man  sprang  into 
existence,  he  was,  probably,  not  much  superior,  if  supe- 
rior at  all,  to  the  highest  developed  animals  of  which  we 
know.  To-day,  the  lowest  savages  are  in  possession  of 
articulate  language,  some  sort  of  social  organization,  and 
some  sort  of  moral  feeling.  Innumerable  centuries  must 
have  passed  before  man  reached  even  the  stage  of  the 
savages  existing  to-day.  Equally  innumerable  were  the 
centuries  of  savagery  and  barbarism,  except  where  sav- 
ages and  barbarians  came  into  contact  with  civilization. 
Civilization  has  advanced  rapidly  within  the  historic 
period,  and  the  rapidity  of  the  advance  constantly  in- 
creased as  the  velocity  of  the  falling  stone  increases  the 
nearer  it  approaches  the  earth.  It  took  man  longer,  and 
it  cost,  perhaps,  much  more  mental  effort  to  invent  the 
bow  and  arrow  than  it  now  requires  to  invent  the  most 
complicated  machine. 

Human  history  is  a  history  of  continued  uninter- 
rupted progress.  To  say  that  any  civilization  ever  de- 
clined and  disappeared  is  false.  When  nations  perished, 
their  civilization  was  not  lost,  but  was  taken  up  and  con- 
tinued by  other  nations.  When  the  Roman  empire  fell, 

809 


210  BOOKING  FORWARD 

civilization  did  not  perish.  What  was  best  in  Graeco- 
Roman  civilization  had  already  been  adopted  by  the 
Germans.  And  during  all  times  the  human  race  has 
steadily  improved,  intellectually,  morally  and,  in  some 
respects,  undoubtedly,  also  physically. 

There  is  no  stronger  instinct  in  either  man  or  ani- 
mal than  that  of  self-preservation.  All  other  instincts, 
and,  as  far  as  man  is  concerned,  all  thought  and  action 
are  subservient  to  it.  There  is  one  thing  that  man  must 
have  in  all  stages  of  culture  from  the  lowest  to  the  high- 
est, and  that  is  the  necessaries  of  life  for  his  subsistence. 
Different  as  they  may  be  in  different  stages  of  culture, 
the  first  natural  impulse  goes  toward  obtaining  them, 
and  the  first  effort  of  thought  and  action  is  directed 
toward  that  end.  The  manner  of  finding  and  acquiring, 
and,  later  on,  the  manner  of  producing  the  necessaries 
of  life  has  shaped  human  sentiment,  has  brought  forth 
the  moral  sense  and  created  moral  laws,  has  undoubtedly 
influenced  the  development  of  mythologies,  creeds  and 
gods  and  has  developed  and  given  form  to  social  and 
political  institutions.  Considering  the  term  necessaries 
of  life  in  the  broad  sense  of  civilization,  including  its 
comforts  and  even  its  luxuries,  no  moral  precept  and  no 
institution  antagonistic  to  the  prevailing  manner  of  pro- 
'  ducing  them  can  last.  As  we  find  in  the  history  of  man, 
step  by  step,  one  change  after  the  other  in  the  mode  of 
production,  so  we  find,  step  by  step,  corresponding 
changes  in  moral  and  political  laws,  in  social  and  polit- 
ical institutions.  These  changes  display  an  uninter- 
rupted tendency  of  the  latter  to  set  themselves  in  har- 
mony with  the  former.  If  to-day  we  were  to  follow  all 
the  precepts  and  commands  of  the  bible,  our  whole  in- 
dustrial, commercial  and  credit  system  would  become 


CONCLUSION  211 

impossible.  We  could  have  no  private  property  in  land, 
we  could  take  no  interest  on  loans  or  debts,  could  keep 
neither  pledge  nor  mortgage  in  possession  and  would 
not  be  allowed  to  suffer  any  one  to  become  a  pauper. 
Upon  the  other  hand,  the  moral  sentiments  expressed  in 
the  Old  Testament  would  not  prevent  us  from  keeping 
slaves,  nor  the  men  from  being  bigamists  or  polyga- 
mists.  I  believe  to  have  good  reason  for  assuming  that 
Christ's  opinion  that  it  were  easier  for  a  camel  to  go 
through  a  needle's  ear  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  does  not  much  trouble  the  conscience 
of  any  millionaire,  nor  hinder  any  one  from  striving  to 
become  one.  If  we  had  continued  to  look  upon  women 
with  the  same  sort  of  moral  feeling  as  the  apostles  and 
fathers  of  the  church  did,  the  men  would  still  thank  God 
every  day  for  not  having  created  them  women,  and  the 
latter  would  still  be  in  the  most  abject  condition. 

No  conquering  nation  has  ever  felt  moral  scruples 
to  make  the  inhabitants  of  another  country  captives  and 
slaves,  or  to  take  and  use  its  land,  and  modern  moral 
sentiment  does  not  practically  interfere  with  the  conduct 
of  bloody  wars  for  the  expansion  of  trade. 

Economic  motives  are  at  the  bottom  of  all  of  it.  Eco- 
nomic motives  govern  the  actions  of  men  and  nations 
to-day  as  they  ever  did.  Evolution  effected  gradually, 
and  from  time  to  time,  great  changes  in  economic  condi- 
tions and  in  the  motives  and  sentiments  springing  from 
them.  There  is  not  the  slightest  reason  to  believe  that 
present  economic  conditions  and  present  moral  views  and 
social  and  political  institutions  will  henceforth  remain 
unchanged.  That  they  will  change  in  the  future  is  as 
certain  as  that  they  have  changed  in  the  past.  The 
uncertainty  is  only  in  the  manner  and  the  result  of  the 


212  BOOKING  FORWARD 

change.  Upon  this  point  opinions  may  and  will  differ. 
But  it  is  not  necessary  to  guess  blindly,  for  evolution 
works  along  the  line  of  progress  and  knows  no  retro- 
gression. We  may  be  sure  that  there  will  be  no  return 
to  former  methods;  we  may  be  sure  that  in  the  future, 
as  heretofore,  production  will  use  the  most  effective 
methods  available,  and  that  the  use  of  machinery  will  be 
still  more  extended.  The  use  of  machinery  will,  as  it 
does  now,  make  necessary  the  working  together  of 
many,  the  concentration  of  production  at  central  points. 
There  can  be  no  return  to  the  shop  which  was  replaced 
by  the  factory.  Human  power  of  production  will  con- 
tinue to  grow,  and  the  time  will  come  when  human  soci- 
ety will  not  allow  production  to  be  retarded  by  artificial 
means  in  the  interest  of  the  owners  of  the  instruments 
of  production.  Production  will  be  carried  on  in  the 
most  economical  way  and  human  energy  and  labor  force 
will  not  be  treated  as  a  commercial  commodity  and 
wasted  in  the  interest  of  a  part  of  society,  but,  being 
inseparable  from  man,  will  be  treated  as  part  of  him.  It 
is  not  probable  that  this  can  be  achieved  by  letting  pro- 
duction and  distribution  remain  private  business.  The 
probability  rather  is  that  they  will  have  to  be  made  a 
public  affair.  Society  has  an  interest  in  the  welfare  of 
its  members;  so  much  is  already  acknowledged  to-day. 
After  a  while  society  will  clearly  see  that  the  welfare 
of  its  members  can  best  be  extended  and  preserved  by 
the  most  extensive  use  of  its  power  of  production  and 
that  such  use  is  impossible  under  the  prevailing  eco- 
nomic system.  Then  will  come  a  time  of  experiment- 
ing, and  out  of  these  experiments,  perhaps  only  after 
many  mistakes  and  failures,  a  new  economic  system  will 
arise.  Nor  will  it  come  without  severe  class-struggles. 


CONCLUSION  213 

The  lower  economic  class  will,  as  the  lower  classes  have 
always  done,  use  all  its  energy  in  bettering  its  condition 
and  will  strive  to  rise  to  the  level  of  the  class  above, 
while  the  ruling  economic  class  will  defend  its  position 
with  the  same,  energy  and  the  same  assurance  of  rights 
as  political  classes  ever  defended  theirs.  They  will  in- 
sist upon  being  let  alone  with  a  pertinacity  equal  to  that 
of  the  political  classes  which  insisted  upon  their  God- 
given  privileges.  From  an  historical  standpoint,  far 
above  party  and  class-interests,  the  often  heard  talk  of 
harmony  between  capital  and  labor,  as  generally  under- 
stood, is  merely  an  illusion.  Through  the  whole  history 
of  the  human  race,  since  the  beginning  of  the  institu- 
tion of  private  property,  we  witness  the  everlasting 
struggles  between  the  different  classes  of  society.  Mod- 
ern civilization  can  make  an  effort  to  eliminate  from 
these  struggles  acts  of  brutality  and  barbarism,  but  noth- 
ing can  prevent  or  end  them  except  the  creation  of  an 
economic  system,  which  makes  the  existence  of  classes 
impossible. 

The  large  majority  of  men  are  timid  and  afraid  lest 
they  may  flee  from  known  evils  to  greater  unknown 
evils.  But  we  need  not  feel  any  terror  of  the  future 
and  may  examine  all  propositions  for  reforms  and 
changes  in  our  institutions  with  calm  consideration.  For 
through  all  the  centuries  of  the  past,  with  all  their  inno- 
vations and  changes,  the  condition  of  human  society  has 
gradually  and  constantly  improved,  and  the  human  race 
has  grown  better.  There  is  no  reason  to  be  afraid  of 
the  future,  certainly  not  from  the  standpoint  of  human- 
ity at  large.  Even  not  from  the  standpoint  of  individ- 
ual man.  For  after  all,  human  life  is  but  temporary  and 
we  are  beyond  those  superstitions  which  caused  the 


214  LOOKING  FORWARD 

burial  of  a  dead  man's  horses  and  servants  and  symbols 
of  treasure  along  with  him  for  use  in  the  other  world. 
After  all,  every  human  being  has  only  one  body  to  shel- 
ter, one  body  to  clothe,  one  stomach  to  fill.  And  if  one 
has  what  is  necessary  to  live  comfortably,  and  to  satisfy 
one's  intellectual  and  aesthetic  tastes,  it  is  enough  for 
material  happiness.  Whatever  goes  beyond  that  can 
only  serve  the  vulgar  desire  of  ostentation.  All  that  is 
necessary  to  add  for  the  purpose  of  making  happiness 
complete,  in  so  far  as  access  to  physical  things  can  do 
that,  is,  beside  the  certainty  of  having  so  much,  the  cer- 
tainty that  those  whom  we  love  and  whom  we  leave  be- 
hind will  enjoy  the  same  material  happiness.  Compared 
with  the  enormous  fortunes  and  incomes  of  the  favored 
few,  it  takes  very  little  to  satisfy  all  reasonable  demands 
for  well-being  and  comfort,  and  it  cannot  be  disputed 
that  in  our  times  the  productive  power  of  man  and  na- 
ture together  is  fully  adequate  to  their  satisfaction. 
From  a  general  social  and  human  standpoint  the  accu- 
mulation of  great  fortunes  becomes  absurd  and  useless, 
being  able  only  to  gratify  the  lust  of  power  and  ostenta- 
tion. 

It  is  urged  sometimes  in  defense  of  our  present  sys- 
tem that  wealth  is  the  powerful  incentive  to  human 
effort,  and  that  without  this  incentive  human  talent  and 
intellect  would  be  without  an  object  for  which  to  mani- 
fest themselves.  I  do  not  believe  it.  While  I  admit 
that  man  needs  an  incentive,  an  object  for  his  efforts,  I 
cannot  admit  that  there  can  be  no  other  incentive  but 
wealth.  Perhaps  under  the  present  system  of  produc- 
tion and  distribution,  under  present  social  and  political 
arrangements,  it  may  be  impossible  to  find  a  stronger, 
nay  even  another  incentive.  But  every  economic  sys- 


CONCLUSION  215 

tem  and  the  social  arrangements  growing  out  of  it,  cre- 
ate their  own  incentives,  their  own  ambitions,  their  own 
intellectual  and  moral  sentiments.  To  the  ancient  Gre- 
cian a  laudation  or  a  wreath  in  the  Olympic  games  was 
as  much  an  incentive  for  putting  forth  his  best  efforts 
as  money  is  to  modern  man.  Men  have  given  up  their 
lives  for  the  sake  of  liberty,  men  have  sacrificed  their 
lives  for  their  country.  In  neither  case  could  they  them- 
selves enjoy  the  fruits  of  their  action.  Is  there  any  rea- 
son why  the  good  of  society,  and  indirectly  that  of  one- 
self, may  not  be  an  equally  strong  incentive?  If  our 
economic  system  has  so  shaped  our  minds  and  interests 
that  we  cannot  think  of  any  other  incentive  but  wealth, 
it  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  there  can  be  no  other 
incentive  under  other  and  different  conditions. 

I  am  firmly  of  the  opinion  that  our  economic  system 
is  not  favorable  to  the  highest  development  of  the  human 
race.  Granted  that  it  was  the  logical  consequence  of 
what  was  before,  granted  that  it  contributed  immensely 
to  the  development  of  the  race  to  its  present  point,  and 
that  it  was  a  necessary  stage  in  the  progress  of  civiliza- 
tion, I  think  it  has  reached  its  highest  point  of  useful- 
ness and  must  give  way  to  a  better  system,  if  civiliza- 
tion is  to  progress  as  it  has  progressed  heretofore.  The 
future  system  must  grow  out  of  the  present  system.  It 
must  be  the  logical  sequence  of  it.  It  cannot  be  in- 
vented, it  must  grow  and  develop.  A  prevailing  sys- 
tem, especially  one  as  complex  as  ours,  cannot  be  sud- 
denly destroyed  and  immediately  replaced  by  another 
entirely  new  and  complete.  It  will  be  the  result  of  grad- 
ual adjustment.  W'hile  it  is  quite  natural  for  the  sociol- 
ogist or  the  economist  to  construct  in  his  mind  such  a 
new  system-  he  should  be  careful  not  to  build  his  castle 


216  LOOKING  FORWARD 

in  the  air,  but  on  the  firm  ground  of  existing  institu- 
tions, and  consider  the  possibilities  and  probabilities  of 
evolution. 

The  average  man  is  conservative  and  has  always  mis- 
givings about  proposed  changes  and  reforms.  He  is 
always  afraid  of  their  non-adaptability  to  human  nature. 
As  a  rule,  however,  this  fear  is  groundless.  Man  is  as 
much,  if  not  more,  the  creature  of  his  surroundings  than 
his  surroundings  are  the  creature  of  his  mind  and  will. 
If  we  attempt  to  retrace  all  social  and  economic  changes 
and  man's  adjustment  to  them  to  the  beginning,  we  find 
that  the  natural  surroundings  eixsted  before  man  came 
into  them,  and  that  man  had  to  arrange  his  mode  of  liv- 
ing according  to  them.  The  observation  of  evil  effects 
of  these  surroundings  impelled  him  to  improve  them, 
and  as  they  grew  better,  they  also  improved  him  and 
created  in  him  new  needs  and  new  desires,  made  another 
man  of  him.  Better  conditions  gave  him  new  inspira- 
tions and  infused  him  with  new  moral  ideas.  So  will  it 
also  be  in  the  future.  Men  will  adjust  themselves  to 
their  surroundings  and  a  better  economic  system  will 
create  the  type  of  men  suited  to  it  in  intellectual,  phys- 
ical and  moral  capacity.  I  have  no  fault  to  find  with 
those  who  believe  that  God  infused  man  from  the  start 
with  moral  sentiments  and  moral  ideas,  and  that  human 
institutions  were  the  result  of  these  sentiments  and  ideas, 
but  I  am  of  a  different  opinion.  At  any  rate,  I  cannot  see, 
if  it  was  God  who  has  implanted  man  with  moral  ideas, 
why  he  should  have  planted  into  man  different  moral 
ideas  at  different  times. 

As  every  economic  system  creates  moral  ideas  fitting 
it,  so  it  gives  birth  to  crimes  peculiarly  its  own.  Under 
our  system  of  economics  nine-tenths  of  all  crimes  known 


CONCLUSION  217 

are  crimes  against  property,  or  such  as  have  for  their 
object  the  gain  of  property.  Our  laws  mention  many  a 
crime  of  which  other  laws,  for  instance  the  Mosaic  law, 
knew  nothing. 

It  will,  in  all  probability,  be  one  of  the  characteristics 
of  the  future  economic  system  that  labor  force  and  the 
instruments  of  labor  are  nearer  together  than  they  are 
now.  At  present  the  man  using  his  physical  labor  force 
and  the  man  owning  the  instruments  of  labor  are  dif- 
ferent persons.  It  follows  as  an  unavoidable  result  that 
the  former  is  dependent  upon  the  latter,  that  he  must 
sell  him  his  labor  force  for  a  market  price,  and  that  both 
belong  to  different  classes  of  society.  Under  the  effect 
of  a  new  economic  system,  which  brings  labor  force 
and  instruments  of  labor  nearer  together,  conditions  of 
extreme  wealth  and  extreme  poverty  will  disappear  and 
the  state  or  government  will  not  be  dominated  over  by 
an  economic  class.  There  can  be  no  real  freedom,  nor 
real  political  equality,  until  there  are  no  more  economic 
classes.  Where  there  is  general  economic  independence 
no  economic  class  will  find  tools  for  the  execution  of  its 
will  among  those  who  form  the  government,  and  the 
government  being  then  not  only  in  name,  but  in  fact 
the  representative  of  all  the  citizens,  and  not  as  now  of 
a  class  only,  will  have  to  assume  functions  which  polit- 
ical science,  shaped  by  class-interests,  would  not  allow 
it  to  assume  at  present. 

The  conception  of  liberty  will,  in  all  probability,  be 
quite  different  from  what  it  is  now,  and  the  ethical  views 
of  the  time  may  carry  governmental  protection  farther 
than  merely  against  violence  and  fraud.  There  is  no 
positive  liberty.  It  is  always  relative.  The  conscious- 
ness of  liberty  depends  on  the  harmony  between  individ- 


218  LOOKING  FORWARD 

ual  needs  and  desires  and  the  possibility  of  their  satisfac- 
tion. But  neither  individual  needs  and  desires,  nor  the 
possibility  of  their  satisfaction,  are  always  the  same. 

The  highest  civilization  and  the  highest  moral  con- 
ception can  only  be  worked  out  in  a  condition  of  eco- 
nomic independence.  Of  course,  not  that  individual  in- 
dependence which  has  the  dependence  of  another  for  its 
footstool,  but  the  economic  independence  of  all,  which 
can  only  be  had  under  a  government  capable  of  secur- 
ing it  and  instituted  to  that  end. 

The  state,  as  constituted  at  present,  would  be  incap- 
able of  securing  such  independence,  even  if  it  existed. 
Although  we  still  witness  the  accumulation  and  increase 
of  immense  fortunes,  we  may  nevertheless  be  sure  that 
the  moment  will  come  when  disintegration  will  set  In 
and  the  process  of  equalization  will  commence.  Society 
will  erect  a  new  economic  structure,  and  sooner  or  later 
create  a  political  edifice  in  harmony  with  it  and  adapted 
to  its  mode  of  production  and  distribution. 

The  new  mode  of  production  and  distribution  will 
not  only  produce  a  higher  form  of  government,  but  also 
a  higher  form  of  the  family.  The  highest  form  of  the 
family  can  only  evolve  under  economic  conditions  which 
make  husband  and  wife  economically  independent  of 
each  other,  so  that  no  considerations  of  an  economic 
nature  will  enter  into  the  holiest  and  most  intimate  rela- 
tion between  two  human  beings.  The  more  one  delves 
into  the  novelistic  and  dramatic  literature  of  our  times, 
the  more  one  becomes  convinced  that  the  marriage  prob- 
lem is  one  of  the  deepest  felt  problems  of  the  present 
age.  True,  those  plots  and  narratives  are  all  invented, 
but  they  are  nevertheless  the  reflex  of  actual  life.  These 
narrations  of  mistakes,  changes  of  feeling,  incompatibil- 


CONCHJSION  219 

ity  of  temper  or  sentiment,  describing  the  woe  and  mis- 
ery following,  speak  a  most  pathetic  language  and  sound 
like  a  cry  of  longing  for  happier  forms  of  marriage  and 
like  a  wail  of  despair  of  finding  them.  But,  they  are 
sure  to  come  some  time  under  another  economic  system. 

In  the  second  volume  of  his  "Sociology,"  Herbert 
Spencer  says :  "In  primitive  phases  while  permanent 
monogamy  was  developing,  union  in  the  name  of  the 
law — that  is,  originally,  the  act  of  purchase — was  ac- 
counted the  essential  part  of  the  marriage,  and  union  in 
the  name  of  affection  was  not  essential.  In  the  present 
day  union  in  the  name  of  the  law  is  considered  the  most 
important,  and  union  by  affection  the  less  important.  A 
time  will  come  when  union  by  affection  will  be  consid- 
ered the  most  important,  and  union  in  the  name  of  the 
law  the  least  important,  and  men  will  hold  in  reproba- 
tion those  conjugal  unions  in  which  union  by  affection 
is  dissolved." 

While  Herbert  Spencer  is  ethnologically  and  historic- 
ally in  error,  because  marriage  by  purchase  and  monog- 
amy,, even  in  its  beginnings,  did  not  exist  contemporane- 
ously, his  philosophy  is  quite  true. 

I  doubt  that  there  is  anything  more  destructive  of 
good  will  and  affection  in  marriage  than  the  consicous- 
ness  of  possession  and  the  difficulty  or  impossibility  of 
separation.  The  efforts  of  the  parties  toward  winning 
each  other  by  presenting  themselves  from  their  best 
sides,  make  room  for  an  abandonment  and  carelessness 
in  dress  and  appearance,  and  a  want  of  politeness  in 
manner  and  mutual  intercourse,  which,  as  between  hus- 
band and  wife,  have  become  almost  proverbial  and  a 
prolific  source  of  jests  in  humerous  periodicals.  They 
would  in  good  society  not  be  tolerated  even  between 


220  LOOKING  FORWARD 

strangers.  Yet  all  this  could  be  different,  for  there  is 
no  man  who  may  not  fascinate  some  woman,  nor  is  there 
a  woman,  be  she  ever  so  homely,  who  may  not  look 
charming  in  the  eyes  of  some  man;  and  there  are  few 
between  whom  the  feeling  of  love  and  affection  may 
not  be  preserved  for  life,  if  it  were  as  carefully  culti- 
vated after  marriage  as  it  was  before  marriage. 

The  best  medicine  against  social  ills  is  freedom. 
Granting  that  society  must  guard  against  abuse  of  it,  it 
remains  true,  nevertheless,  that  with  the  advancement 
of  civilization  and  the  exaltation  of  ethical  conceptions, 
sentiment  and  conscience  must  more  and  more  take  the 
place  of  police,  orders  and  penal  laws  and  restrictions. 
I  feel  satisfied  that  even  to-day  the  majority  of  men 
would  neither  commit  larceny  nor  murder,  even  if  they 
were  not  forbidden  and  punished  by  law.  The  want  of 
economic  freedom  and  independence  makes  cowards  of 
us  all  and  hypocrites  of  many  of  us.  Men  have  sup- 
pressed their  best  thoughts  for  fear  of  economic  injury, 
and  others  have  shammed  beliefs  and  opinions  for  the 
same  reason.  That  has  happened  in  the  sphere  of  pol- 
itics, in  the  sphere  of  religion  and  in  the  sphere  of  phi- 
losophy and  science.  The  freedom  of  speech  is  given  to 
us  by  the  law,  but  it  is  chained  by  economic  considera- 
tions, by  the  fears  which  economic  conditions  produce, 
and  by  the  feeling  of  the  necessity  to  do  for  the  sake  of 
business  or  position  what  one  would  not  do  for  the  sake 
of  conscience. 

It  may  be  that  in  the  activities  of  this  world,  each 
sex  has  its  proper  sphere.  But  I  have  always  consid- 
ered it  an  assumption  on  the  part  of  men  to  attempt  to 
determine  for  themselves  the  proper  sphere  of  women. 
In  so  far  as  they  have  done  it,  they  have  betrayed  noth- 


CONCLUSION  221 

ing  but  selfishness.  Although  they  do  not  object  to  the 
employment  of  women  as  wage-workers  in  shops,  offices 
and  stores,  there  are  a  good  many  vocations  out  of 
which  they  seek  to  keep  her  by  proclaiming  those  voca- 
tions to  be  peculiarly  within  the  sphere  of  men.  Most 
men  still  entertain  the  opinion  that  the  proper  sphere  of 
woman  is  nowhere  but  within  the  home,  and  that  the 
only  mission  of  woman  upon  this  earth  is  to  please  and 
comfort  man,  provided  he  is  her  husband.  It  does  not 
suit  their  taste  to  see  women  striving  more  and  more 
for  independence  and  interesting  themselves  in  matters 
of  public  concern.  Her  right  to  higher  education  and 
learning  was  only  grudgingly  acknowledged,  and  there 
are  still  universities,  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,  which 
close  their  doors  to  women.  But  nothing  is  more 
tabooed,  nothing  considered  less  within  the  sphere  of 
women  than  politics.  There,  still,  is  little  chance  in  the 
United  States  for  giving  women  the  right  of  suffrage 
outside  of  the  few  states  in  which  it  was  granted  to 
them,  probably  for  local  purposes  and  principally,  I  sup- 
pose, because  it  was  thought  to  be  of  advantage  to  the 
temperance  cause.  Yet  women  pay  the  same  taxes  on 
property,  if  they  have  any,  as  men;  they  are  subject  to 
the  same  criminal  laws  and  to  the  same  civil  laws ;  and, 
if  they  stand  alone,  must  find  their  support  without  any 
aid  from  the  state.  Is  it  just,  then,  to  give  them  no 
voice  in  rating  taxation  or  in  making  the  laws?  Taxa- 
tion without  representation  was  one  of  the  causes  for 
which  the  American  colonies  rebelled  against  England. 
Are  not  our  women  taxed  without  representation?  And 
considering  stamp  duties',  import  duties  and  the  shift- 
ing effect  of  taxes,  are  not  all  those  women  who  must 
make  a  living  for  themselves  taxed,  even  if  they  pay  no 


222  LOOKING  FORWARD 

direct  property  tax?  Are  they  not  compelled  to  obey 
laws  made  by  others  for  them?  Is  this  not  gross  injus- 
tice? 

One  of  the  many  silly  reasons  given  for  it  is  this, 
that  men  should  have  the  superior  right  of  legislation 
because  on  them  also  involves  the  duty  of  defending  the 
country  in  time  of  war.  True,  quite  true,  but  it  is  to 
be  hoped  that  in  course  of  time  there  will  be  no  more 
wars.  Yet  I  think  this  special  duty  of  men  is  offset  by 
a  special  function  of  women,  namely,  that  of  giving  birth 
to  the  future  generation.  It  is  a  question  where  there 
is  more  pain  and  suffering  and  more  heroism,  on  the 
battle-field  or  in  child-bed.  It  is  a  question  whether 
death  reaps  a  richer  harvest  on  the  battle-field  or  in 
child-bed.  Because  in  the  one  case  the  sufferings  are 
spread  out,  and  in  the  other  they  are  concentrated,  in 
time  and  space,  so  that  the  sensation  of  horror  in  both 
cases  is  not  the  same,  we  have  no  opportunity  to  make 
comparisons.  There  is,  however,  no  question  that  the 
function  of  bringing  forth  life  is  more  useful  to  society 
than  that  of  taking  life,  no  matter  for  what  purpose. 
And  there  is  neither  hope  nor  fear  that  child-bearing 
will  ever  come  to  an  end. 

The  reasons  most  generally  stated,  why  women 
should  not  be  in  politics,  as  not  being  their  proper 
sphere,  are  of  a  sentimental  nature  and  reflect  sorely  and 
sadly  on  our  political  life.  It  is,  however,  not  worth 
the  trouble  to  investigate  whether  politics  would  cor- 
rupt women,  or  women  would  purify  politics.  First, 
because  sentimental  reasons  do  not  weigh  heavily  in  the 
development  of  social  institutions  and  political  rights, 
and  secondly,  it  is  greatly  to  be  doubted  that  these  are 
true  reasons.  I  believe  that  the  cowardice  of  men,  their 


CONCLUSION  223 

fear  of  being  overawed  by  woman,  has  much  to  do  with 
it.  Men  feel  in  their  private  and  family  life  the  power 
which  women  have  over  them  and  fear  that  power  in 
public  life.  They  fear  it  because  they  do  not  under- 
stand the  cause  of  it. 

It  sounds,  perhaps,  paradoxical  to  say  that  between 
persons  of  unequal  strength,  bound  together  by  ties  of 
duty  or  affection,  the  weaker  is  practically  the  stronger, 
but  it  is  true.  The  power  of  woman  over  man  under 
our  social  and  economic  condition  has  its  source  in  her 
weakness  and  dependence,  and  is  for  that  reason  an  igno- 
ble power.  A  woman  may  with  impunity  commit 
against  a  man  offenses  which  would  meet  with  violent 
resentment,  if  they  came  from  a  man.  The  economic 
dependence  of  woman  robs  man  of  his  freedom  of  action, 
unless  he  is  devoid  of  all  feeling.  The  economic  and 
social  dependence  of  woman  stirs  his  chivalrous  nature; 
he  knows  and  feels  that  the  woman  needs  him,  and  he 
submits  when  otherwise  he  would  not.  By  parity  of 
reasoning  it  appears  plain  that  with  the  growth  of  the 
economic  and  social  independence  of  women,  man  would 
also  become  freer  and  more  independent.  A  chivalrous 
nature  is  always  apt  to  become  the  slave  of  the  weak. 
Daughters  are  far  more  apt  to  rule  a  household  than 
sons,  because  the  latter  can  easier  care  for  themselves 
than  the  former  and  may  with  less  scruples  be  told  to 
go.  A  baby  can  make  all  the  members  of  a  household 
its  slaves.  It  is  a  slavery  which  can  be  abolished  only  in 
two  ways :  either  the  stronger  must  become  brutal  or 
the  weaker  must  become  stronger.  Is  it  necessary  to 
point  out  the  better  and  more  civilized  way? 

And  yet,  I  am  frank  enough  to  say  that  I  do  not  set 
much  expectation  on  female  suffrage  under  present  con- 


224  LOOKING  FORWARD 

ditions.  To  be  sure,  if  its  introduction  would  depend 
on  my  vote,  I  would  without  a  moment's  hesitation  cast 
it  in  its  favor  as  a  matter  of  justice.  But  I  would  do  it 
with  the  conviction  that  it  would,  for  the  present,  not 
materially  further  the  cause  of  women.  Our  political 
fights  are  class-fights.  The  lack  of  consciousness  that 
they  are  does  not  change  the  fact.  The  absence  of  priv- 
ileged classes  conceals  it,  and  the  economic  classes  and 
their  struggles  are  not  generally  understood.  How- 
ever, as  the  comprehension  of  our  economic  system 
grows,  the  political  class-fight  will  become  more  pro- 
nounced. I  am  well  aware  of  the  fact  that  such  words 
as  class-struggles,  class-fights,  etc.,  have  an  odious  sound 
in  the  ears  of  many,  but  it  is  of  no  use  to  shut  our  eyes 
to  facts,  nor  is  anything  gained  by  self-deception.  If 
one  fails  to  discover  in  the  early  history  of  our  country 
the  economic  class-struggle,  such  failure  is  pardonable; 
but  if  one  fails  to  discover  it  in  the  political  struggles 
of  the  last  fifty  years,  in  the  everlasting  tariff-wrangles, 
in  the  rise  and  fall  of  greenbackism  and  populism,  in  the 
candidacy  of  Bryan  and  the  advocacy  of  the  free  coin- 
age of  silver,  in  the  candidacy  of  Hearst  as  the  friend 
of  the  "small  man,"  in  the  slow,  but  steady,  growth  of 
the  socialist  party,  in  the  attempt  of  legislation  against 
the  trusts,  in  the  efforts  of  labor  organizations  to  obtain 
favorable  legislation,  he  is  stricken  with  almost  unpar- 
donable blindness. 

Now,  while  the  political  struggles  bear  the  character 
of  class-struggles,  the  women  as  such  form  no  particular 
economic  class.  Their  interests  are  identical  with  those 
of  their  fathers  or  their  husbands,  and  they  would  gen- 
erally vote  like  these.  For  a  long  time  to  come  the  par- 
ticipation of  women  in  politics  would  probably  not  influ- 


CONCLUSION  225 

ence  legislation,  because  it  would  not  change  the  pro- 
portional strength  of  political  parties. 

But  it  may  have  a  great  intellectual  influence.  It 
may  teach  women  the  importance  and  bearing  of  ecoj 
nomic  questions,  it  may  broaden  their  minds,  they  will 
become  interested  in  affairs  to  which  they  have  hereto- 
fore not  paid  any  attention,  they  will  become  closer 
observers,  will  learn  to  understand  the  world  better,  will 
not  waste,  as  they  do  now,  their  energy  in  small  and 
insignificant  matters,  as  for  instance  the  political  tem- 
perance movement,  will  become  more  tolerant  and  will 
learn  that  freedom  is  a  far  better  educator  than  coer- 
cion and  restraint. 

We  hear  it  said  that  women  are  not  fit  for  politics 
and  matters  of  public  concern,  because  they  are  gener- 
ally influenced  more  by  sentiment  than  by  reason.  I  do 
not  care  to  dispute  that  they  are  more  subject  to  senti- 
ment and  emotion  than'  men.  It  would,  indeed,  be  aston- 
ishing if  the  difference  in  physical  condition  and  natural 
functions  were  not  associated  with  psychic  differences; 
but  are  we  quite  sure  that  it  might  not  be  better  for 
human  society  if  its  affairs  were  conducted  with  a  little 
less  reason  and  a  little  more  sentiment?  And  may  not 
the  overbalancing  power  of  sentiment  over  reason  in 
woman  be  more  or  less  the  product  of  her  social  status, 
which  made  the  use  of  the  one  more  practicable  to  her 
than  the  other?  It  is  quite  trite  that  women  have  so 
far  distinguished  themselves  more  in  the  realm  of  sen- 
timent than  irt  that  of  reason ;  that  is  to  say,  more  in  art 
than  in  science;  but  this  also  may  be  ascribed  to  the 
social  status  of  woman.  That  woman,  however,  is  capa- 
ble of  distinguishing  herself  in  science  has  been  proved 
in  several  instances.  How  could  they  be  numerous 


326  LOOKING  FORWARD 

when  for  centuries  all  the  higher  institutions  of  learn- 
ing were  closed  to  her?  Be  this,  however,  as  it  may, 
and  granted  that  each  sex  has  its  own  proper  sphere  of 
functions  in  the  social  body,  I  state  it  as  my  opinion 
that  woman  should  be  given  the  opportunity  to  find  her 
proper  sphere  and  to  work  out  her  own  salvation  on  a 
basis  of  social  and  civil  equality  with  men.  And  I  am 
furthermore  of  the  opinion  that  wherever  woman  can 
accomplish  something  good  and  beneficial,  she  is  in  her 
proper  sphere.  Woman  should  have  a  chance  of  work- 
ing1 out  her  destiny  unhampered  by  legal  restrictions  and 
social  prejudices. 

I  have  traced  the  status  of  woman,  the  form  of  the 
family,  and  the  form  of  social  and  political  government 
through  the  different  stages  of  human  progress  and  have 
attempted  to  show  their  intimate  connection  with  the 
economic  conditions  as  they  appeared  and  disappeared 
and  affected  the  social  and  political  institutions. 

The  prevalence  of  general  poverty  in  the  primitive 
state  oi;  mankind  resulted  quite  naturally  in  communistic 
relations  between  those  who  by  marriage  or  descent  be- 
longed together.  The  fact  that  the  labor  of  each  indi- 
vidual scarcely  sufficed  for  his  or  her  own  subsistence 
created  necessarily  a  sentiment  of  equality.  Social  organ- 
1  ization  rested  altogether  on  personal  relations.  The  form 
of  the  family  was  one  best  adapted  to  communism  of  pov- 
erty. When  the  stage  of  agriculture  was  reached  and 
women  performed  the  most  important  labor,  they  ac- 
quired superior  power  and  influence,  which  led  to  the 
establishment  of  the  matriarchate  and  corresponding 
changes  in  the  form  of  the  family.  The  patriarchal  fam- 
ily seems  to  have  been  particularly  adapted  to  the 
needs  of  pastoral  peoples.  With  the  growth  of  the  effi- 


CONCLUSION  227 

ciency  of  human  labor,  the  participation  of  women  in 
providing  subsistence  became  less  necessary;  men  per- 
formed it  alone  and  woman  lost  her  power  and  influ- 
ence. The  growth  of  productive  power  enabled  the  in- 
dividual to  produce  more  than  what  was  necessary  for 
his  own  subsistence  and  the  institution  of  slavery  ap- 
peared. In  a  society  in  which  human  beings  were  de- 
graded to  the  condition  of  property,  it  was  quite  natural 
that  the  weak  were  subjected  by  the  strong,  that  ethical 
views  developed  which  permitted  it,  and  that  the  con- 
dition of  women  grew  more  abject  and  subordinate  than 
ever.  Private  property  in  land  was  established,  and 
classes  developed  which  acquired  privileges  and  power. 
The  growth  of  property  interests  made  necessary  an  in- 
stitution for  their  protection.  The  ancient  gentile  organ- 
ization proved  to  be  inefficient  for  the  protection  of  pri- 
vate property  and  the  political  state  appeared.  The 
communistic  institutions  of  old  decayed,  existence  be- 
came uncertain  and  precarious,  large  families  were  dif- 
ficult to  support  and  monogamy  became  the  prevailing 
form  of  the  family.  The  fact  that  property  consisted 
principally  of  land  and  slaves  led  to  wars  of  conquest 
and  Caesarism,  and  after  the  fall  of  Rome  and  the  rise 
of  German  power,  land  still  being  the -principal  means 
of  production,  feudalism  and  serfdom  appeared.  Neither 
production  by  slaves  nor  production  by  serfs  gave 
woman  an  opportunity  to  become  an  economic  factor, 
and  her  social  status  remained  low,  as  it  did  also  under 
the  guild  system.  Trade  and  commerce  gradually  ex- 
panded, better  tools  were  invented,  the  advantages  of 
division  of  labor  became  understood,  the  factory  system 
was  introduced,  legal  restraints  in  trade  and  commerce 
were  abolished  and  the  era  of  free  trade  and  unfettered 


228  LOOKING  FORWARD 

competition  began.  The  bourgeois  class  grew  in  power 
and  influence.  Then  came  the  era  of  great  inventions 
and  modern  industrialism  which  democratized  the  world 
and  made  the  purely  economic  class  of  business  men  the 
ruling  class  in  all  civilized  countries,  monarchies  as  well 
as  republics.  Modern  industrialism  drew  women  into 
the  whirl  of  economic  affairs  and  she  began  to  become 
an  economic  factor  again.  Her  social  status  improved 
and  the  law  granted  her  many  rights  of  person  and  prop- 
erty which  she  had  not  before.  The  modern  movement 
for  the  emancipation  of  women  entered  upon  the  stage. 
The  deleterious  influence  of  the  competitive  system  on 
the  family  disclosed  itself  in  a  decrease  of  the  number 
of  marriages  and  an  increase  in  the  number  of  divorces, 
evincing  a  growing  unsatisfactory  condition  of  family 
relations.  The  efforts  towards  checking  divorce  by 
legal  restraint  and  the  pathetic  cry  in  literature  for  more 
satisfactory  family  relations  are  the  reflex  of  the  strug- 
gle going  on  in  human  society.  At  the  same  time  we 
witness  a  growth  of  the  power  of  capital,  a  growth  of 
the  concentration  of  its  forces,  a  growth  of  the  dissatis- 
faction of  the  masses  of  the  people  with  existing  eco- 
nomic conditions,  a  growth  of  the  bitterness  and  intensity 
of  the  fight  between  capital  and  labor,  a  growth  of  the 
democratical  sentiment  in  the  masses  of  the  people  and  a 
growth  of  the  dissatisfaction  with  the  use  of  the  power 
of  the  state  and  the  administration  of  justice.  Society 
is  in  travail  and  the  birth  of  new  forms  of  economic 
and  social  institutions  is  imminent. 

The  division  of  times  past  into  different  periods  is 
altogether  arbitrary.  The  future  historian  may  let  civ- 
ilization begin  at  a  much  later  period  than  the  historian 
of  our  times.  He  may  refuse  to  record  pauperism, 


IftMVBft 
CONCLUSION  229 

prostitution,  child  labor,  woman  wage-labor,  economic 
classes,  military  institutions  and  wars  as  attributes  of 
civilization,  and  may  put  us  down  as  barbarians.  How- 
ever, the  institutions  and  conditions  of  all  times  have  a 
historical  right  to  be.  Not  only  do  they  come  one  after 
the  other,  but  all  that  succeeds  comes  as  the  necessary 
fruit  and  consequence  of  that  which  precedes. 

So  far,  the  world  has  seen  four  great  general  sys- 
tems of  production,  each  with  its  own  special  form  of 
government,  having  passed  slowly  and  by  degrees  from 
one  into  the  other. 

First,  in  archaic  times,  the  system  of  communism 
of  poverty.  It  created  the  gentile  system  of  govern- 
ment, a  perfectly  democratical  organization,  based  on 
personal  relation. 

Second,  in  ancient  times,  the  system  of  slavery  with 
private  ownership  of  land.  It  created  political  govern- 
ment, based  on  territory  and  property,  culminating  in 
despotism  and  Caesarism. 

Third,  in  mediaeval  times,  the  system  of  serfdom  in 
agriculture,  and  the  system  of  guilds  in  industry.  The 
corresponding  form  of  government  was  feudalistic,  aris- 
tocratic and  autocratic. 

Fourth,  in  modern  times,  the  system  of  free  compe- 
tition with  its  capitalistic  features.  It  created  modern 
parliamentarism  with  more  or  less  extended  rights  of 
suffrage  in  republics  and  constitutional  monarchies. 

The  fifth?  That  is  the  problem.  It  may  be  already 
in  the  stage  of  its  inception.  What  will  it  look  like? 
Will  it  be,  as  Morgan  believes,  a  return  to  the  ancient 
gentes  in  a  higher  form?  Will  it  be,  as  Mr.  Abbott 
thinks,  an  industrial  democracy,  whatever  that  may 
mean?  Will  it  be  socialistic  or  individualistic  in  char- 


230  LOOKING  FORWARD 

acter?  It  would  certainly  be  absurd  to  believe  that  our 
social  and  political  system  is  the  highest  which  the  hu- 
man race  is  able  to  evolve.  So  far,  there  is  no  unan- 
imity of  answer,  neither  in  the  world  of  science  nor  in 
the  world  of  business,  nor  in  the  world  of  labor.  It 
would  be  idle  to  deny  that  the  answer  is  oftener  dic- 
tated by  interest  and  social  position  than  by  logic  and 
reason.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  there  is  a  decided  ten- 
dency toward  socialism,  not  only  in  the  views  prevailing 
among  the  laboring  classes,  but  also  in  the  world  of  lit- 
erature and  economic  science.  Indeed,  if  we  consider 
that  the  present  conditions  are  the  result  of  the  unin- 
terrupted application  of  the  principle  of  individualism 
through  centuries,  it  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  see 
how  the  future  application  of  this  principle  can  amelio- 
rate, much  less  bring  about  a  substantial  change  of  con- 
ditions. What  else  can  Abbott's  industrial  democracy 
or  Morgan's  return  to  the  ancient  gentes  mean  but 
socialism  in  some  form  ?  Political  economy,  as  it  is  offici- 
ally taught,  sees  the  evils  clearly  enough,  but  is  abso- 
lutely unable  to  discover  a  remedy  within  the  beaten 
path  of  individualism. 

Nor  is  this  possible.  For,  so  long  as  instruments 
of  labor  are  in  the  hands  of  one  class  only,  and  the  other 
class  must  sell  to  it  their  labor  force  and  must  do  it 
under  the  power  and  influence  of  competition  for  em- 
ployment, any  material  change  of  general  conditions 
seems  impossible.  Effects  can  never  be  changed  while 
causes  remain  the  same.  Nothing  even  proves  this  bet- 
ter than  occasional  individual  cases  of  luck  and  success. 

The  fear  of  socialism  is  gradually  waning ;  the  dire 
predictions  in  case  the  world  should  turn  socialistic  do 
not  find  as  ready  believers  as  formerly;  people  think 


CONCLUSION  231 

more  for  themselves,  and  to-day  a  well  respected  citizen 
may  advocate  socialism  without  fear  of  losing  caste. 
More  people  study  it  than  ever  did  before,  and  there  can 
be  no  question  that  the  number  of  those  who  are  unable 
to  find  another  avenue  of  escape  from  the  evils  of  our 
economic  arrangements  but  socialism  is  slowly,  but 
steadily,  increasing. 

It  seems  to  be  a  very  plain  proposition.  If  the  evils 
under  which  we  suffer  result  from  the  fact  that  the  in- 
struments of  labor  are  beyond  the  control  of  those  who 
perform  the  work  on  and  with  them,  the  remedy  is  in 
giving  them  the  control.  But  as  a  change  of  control 
from  one  class  to  the  other  would  not  destroy  the  classes 
themselves,  but  would  only  result  in  a  change  of  their 
personnel,  it  is  difficult  to  see  what  else  remains  but 
putting  the  instruments  of  production  within  the  control 
of  all  people  in  their  organized  capacity,  and  that  is  the 
state. 

It  is  said,  however,  of  socialism  that  it  offers  no 
incentive  to  effort,  that  it  would  destroy  individuality 
and  that  it  is  visionary. 

Of  the  first  charge  I  have  already  spoken  in  this 
chapter.  As  to  the  second  I  have  shown  that  our  pres- 
ent economic  order  is  not  favorable  at  all  to  the  devel- 
opment of  genius  and  talent.  It  does  not  seem  to  me 
that  the  counting  room,  the  stock  exchange  and  the 
"market,"  or  the  work  for  a  mere  living  in  the  darkness 
of  the  mine  or  the  dusty  and  smoky  factory,  or  the  end- 
less and  unremunerative  toil  of  women  and  children  cre- 
ate ideal  individualities. 

The  third  objection  deserves  no  consideration  at  all. 
It  is  easy  enough  to  brush  projects  and  propositions  for 
the  future  aside  with  a  shrug  of  the  shoulder  as  vision- 


232  BOOKING  FORWARD 

ary.  It  has  always  been  done  and  requires  very  little 
wisdom.  Undoubtedly  the  guild-master  looked  upon 
every  proposition  to  free  the  trades  from  all  restraints 
as  perfectly  visionary,  and  if  only  a  hundred  years  ago 
one  would  have  pictured  present  conditions  as  the  nec- 
essary consequences  of  unchecked  competition,  he  would 
have  been  called  a  dreamer. 

Whether  it  is  visionary  or  not  cannot  be  determined 
by  the  present  generation  of  mankind.  Final  judgment 
must  be  passed  by  a  generation  of  the  near  or  distant 
future.  But  suppose  the  doctrine  of  socialism  is  false? 
Was  not  the  doctrine  of  the  declaration  of  independence 
that  all  men  are  born  free  and  equal  and  that  they  were 
endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  inalienable  rights 
also  false?  Yet,  it  has  filled  the  people  with  the  hope, 
inspiration  and  enthusiasm  necessary  to  bring  the  strug- 
gle for  independence  to  a  successful  end. 

Every  bit  of  freedom,  every  approach  to  equality, 
every  extension  of  political  and  civil  rights  was  the  re- 
sult of  social  strife  and  revolution.  They  were  social, 
not  natural,  creations.  The  error  consisted  in  stating  as 
a  fact  what  was  a  mere  ethical  conception.  If  the  social- 
istic idea  should  also  be  not  more  than  an  ethical  con- 
ception, it  may  nevertheless  result  in  immense  changes 
for  the  benefit  of  mankind. 

Be  this,  however,  as  it  may,  evolution  will  take  its 
course  regardless  of  objections  and  the  result  will  be  a 
system  of  economics  and  government  which  will  mark  a 
higher  plane  of  culture,  perhaps  a  civilization  grand  and 
noble  beyond  our  dreams  and  a  greater  and  more  equally 
distributed  amount  of  happiness  for  humanity. 

If  we  look  backward  and  compare  what  was  with 
what  is,  if  we  study  the  progress  the  world  has  made 


CONCLUSION  233 

century  after  century  without  halt  or  rest,  we  can  dis- 
cover no  ground  upon  which  to  base  any  doubt  that  the 
future  will  be  as  much  superior  to  the  present  as  the 
present  is  to  the  past. 

Look  backward,  my  dear  reader,  and  when  you  have 
beheld  everything  which  the  power  of  your  mental  vision 
enables  you  to  behold,  then  turn  around  and  look  for- 
ward with  courage  and  confidence  toward  a  future 
worthy  of  your  best  efforts  and  endeavors  in  behalf  of 
struggling  humanity's  hopes  and  aspirations. 

Human  society  will  not  permit  an  economic  system 
which  makes  one  class  of  the  people  produce  all  the 
wealth  of  another  class  to  last  forever.  Nor  will  human 
society  permit  the  permanence  of  a  form  of  government 
which  takes  no  notice  of  man  as  a  natural  being,  but 
treats  him  only  as  a  political  being,  makes  the  protec- 
tion of  property  in  all  its  ramifications  its  highest  func- 
tion and  leaves  man  unprotected  against  its  power.  Hu- 
man intelligence,  impelled  by  necessity  and  popular  will 
and  impulse,  will  find  means  to  direct  the  gigantic  mass 
of  wealth  produced  day  after  day  by  toiling  humanity 
into  other  channels  than  those  running  into  the  coffers 
of  comparatively  few  individuals  and  will  gradually 
devise  and  create  a  form  of  government  adapted  to  their 
new  economic  forms.  By  and  by  man  will  understand 
that  labor  and  production  are  not  the  object  and  pur- 
pose of  life,  but  only  means  to  support  it.  Gradually  the 
human  mind  will  be  educated  to  a  higher  perception  of 
the  value  and  dignity  of  man.  All  this  will  be  accom- 
plished, not  by  the  good  will  and  kind  sentiment  of  some 
individuals,  useful  as  they  may  be,  but  by  the  ever-pres- 
ent, steady,  invincible  movement  and  pressure  from  the 
lower  strata  of  society  towards  the  upper,  using  these 


234  LOOKING  FORWARD 

words  in  an  economic  and  political  sense.  This  move- 
ment has  constituted  the  element  of  the  organic  life  of 
human  society  since  economic  classes  have  begun  to 
exist;  without  it  society  would  be  doomed  to  decay  and 
death.  It  has  always  been  stronger  than  the  powers 
that  were;  it  will  be  stronger  than  the  powers  that 
are.  Nobody  can  remain  a  neutral  observer  of  this 
movement;  one  must  take  part  in  it  consciously  or  un- 
consciously, be  it  as  merchant  or  banker,  manufacturer 
or  laborer,  employer  or  employee,  citizen  or  subject,  and 
must,  according  to  position,  understanding  or  conscience, 
assist  or  resist  it. 

The  social  struggles  which  constitute  this  movement 
must,  from  the  mere  fact  of  their  existence  and  from 
their  very  nature  as  class-struggles,  result  in  changes  for 
the  better;  and  although  it  is  one  of  the  shortcomings 
of  man  that  his  vision  is  not  powerful  enough  to  pen- 
etrate the  veil  which  forever  has  hidden  the  future  from 
the  human  eye,  yet  man  will  continue  to  plan  for  the 
future  and  create  ideals  toward  the  realization  of  which 
he  will  unceasingly  strive.  He  will  derive  inspiration 
and  strength  from  them  in  his  struggles  and  efforts;  and 
his  confidence  in  the  results  of  his  hopes  and  endeavors, 
based  upon  science,  logic  and  experience,  reveals  to  him 
the  future  in  its  general  outlines,  at  least. 

THE  END. 


tfftfi 


from  which  It  was  borrowed. 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


000  738  472     o 


